Couple more days before discussion time, how is everyone doing?
Part of the purpose, I presume, was to introduce her 3 "suitors", who would later each try to save her life.The letters between Mina and Lucy, whilst giving us information on some characters were too drawn out.
I went back and checked, and in the scenes where they find Mina pressed to Dracula's chest, afterwards it mentions blood dripping from her mouth, as well as the punctures in her neck.Was Mina bitten by Dracula, I dont remember reading that she had bite marks on her neck although she had all the other symptoms of having been bitten and the strong reaction to the sacred wafer.
Guess because he was so old, unlike Lucy who was newly vampire-ized.didn't expect him to disintegrate to dust without putting up a fight.
I found that as well. So easier to read and understand.The language was less flowery and wordy than some from this time, so that was good.
We got Frankenstein's POV, which we didn't get with Dracula.I liked Frankenstein much better.
Like the inspiration for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.that Bram Stoker had a woman playing an essential role in Dracula's end, and she wasn't just a weak woman.
Do we even know how he became a vampire? Bit by a rabid bat, maybe?Interesting Mina brought up sympathy for Dracula, of the human he may have been centuries ago before he fell victim and that Mina may need the same sympathy and remembrance of what she once was, if she was not saved.
That is true! His POV would have been interesting.We got Frankenstein's POV, which we didn't get with Dracula.
I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!Like the inspiration for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).Do we even know how he became a vampire? Bit by a rabid bat, maybe?
I think it’s suggested when Van Helsing is talking about Dracula’s history that he “attended the Scholomance” and was the tenth scholar chosen by the Devil as payment. Stoker seems to have based him at least partly on Vlad the Impaler (he did at least get the name and Romanian location from his history), not a man one generally feels sorry for!That is true! His POV would have been interesting.
I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!
Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).
I loved that show back in the day, but haven't watched any episodes in years, so don't know if it would feel dated now or not. But if come across the series, it might be worth checking out.I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!
Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).
Interesting. Thanks, both of you, for posting that info.I think it’s suggested when Van Helsing is talking about Dracula’s history that he “attended the Scholomance” and was the tenth scholar chosen by the Devil as payment. Stoker seems to have based him at least partly on Vlad the Impaler (he did at least get the name and Romanian location from his history), not a man one generally feels sorry for!
Welcome! I had quite an interest in Vlad years ago.I loved that show back in the day, but haven't watched any episodes in years, so don't know if it would feel dated now or not. But if come across the series, it might be worth checking out.
Season 1 is mostly standalone episodes and was the show finding its groove. Seasons 2 and 3 were the absolute best, and I waited patiently each week for the new episode. Like so many shows that run a long time, it wasn't as good in the later seasons, but there were still some standout episodes that were really good..
In one of the later seasons, Dracula had a guest appearance, though I can't remember much about what happened in that episode, as it's been too long since I saw it.
Interesting. Thanks, both of you, for posting that info.
I was not sure of what to think of this quote from Dracula!I would also be interested in Stoker's other works to see how his female characters are presented. I cannot imagine that they are pretty but brainless - perhaps a reason for his books no longer being read! (Just a thought!)
I was surprised and somewhat shocked by this statement. I think that's religion for you and what some men would like to hear! I can remember a girl at school - far more sophisticated than I was - saying that men serve and fear God, while women have a duty to man. At the time, I was perhaps 14, it made me think - but not now!I was not sure of what to think of this quote from Dracula!
"...why are men so noble when we women are so little worthy of them?" I blush...
No, it was written in England. Stoker was Protestant (Church of Ireland) and had been living in England since about 1878. He was Sir Henry Irving’s business manager at the Lyceum Theatre - it’s been suggested Irving was one of the inspirations for his physical description of Dracula. He researched much of it at the London Library.I found Dracula a fairly easy, in part a rather boring read - until the end when I was fearful about what would happen to Mina once she'd shown the first signs of becoming a vampire herself.
But ...... and it's a big BUT!
This book was written in Catholic Ireland in 1897 and is an amazing reflection of the times. God was not a God of Love; religion was a way of life with all its symbolism and fear of attracting God's wrath. Mental illness was associated with works of the devil and then there was an increasing interest in vampire-like creatures, which have been described even as early as in Ancient Greece. Central and Eastern Europe abounded in myths about these satanic Un-dead creatures, living on the blood of sleeping victims and spreading disease and death. Hypnotism and blood transfusions were the new hope for medical progress although, I assume, little, if anything, was known about blood types and rhesus factors and the limits of results from hypnotism were only to be discovered later. Information was exchanged in long (boring?) letters and people had more time to read and write at leasure.
I then recalled my schooldays. The teacher of English literature, included Frankenstein and Dracula among the books we could be reading in our spare time, to improve our skills, but added that Dracula was based on an earlier work ........
My research (in books - not Wikipedia!) led me to the short stories "In a Glass Darkly" written by Sheridan Le Fanu, an Irish journalist. The book was published in 1872. A female vampire appeared in the short story "Carmilla" which you can read at Wikisource
and, of course, I had to read that as well. It is much shorter, but, in many ways, similar to Stoker's Dracula. There are other even earlier works on vampires, which I found - this time on the Internet - but I'm not going into any more detail.
The books "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" are two very different horror stories - the one a vision of what man could be capable of and the other a fantasy, but based on the life and fears of Catholic Ireland in 1897.
All films based on these stories have concentrated on the horrors and become very successful. Unfortunately, the more interesting side of both stories are necessarily lost and most people even think that Frankenstein is the monster, rather than the scientist who put him together.
I suppose, as a book , just for reading on your own
but, if there were an opportunity for further lively discussions to gain more information on the social history, to find out more about the progress in blood transfusions, treatment of mental illness and hypnotism, and not forgetting the other vampire-like creatures in myths and literature, surely a !
I would also be interested in Stoker's other works to see how his female characters are presented. I cannot imagine that they are pretty but brainless - perhaps a reason for his books no longer being read! (Just a thought!)
You're right of course, but he was born in Dublin, in 1847 and worked as a civil servant until 1878. I would love to read some of his other stories. Incidentally, the Catholic and Protestant Churches at the time were extremely similar, at least in their practices and attitudes to women.No, it was written in England. Stoker was Protestant (Church of Ireland) and had been living in England since about 1878. He was Sir Henry Irving’s business manager at the Lyceum Theatre - it’s been suggested Irving was one of the inspirations for his physical description of Dracula. He researched much of it at the London Library.
The first 4 chapters were definitely the best.The first 4 chapters were OK for me.
I missed the "cat's meat sellers" mention. But do recall thinking "glad I'm vegetarian" when I read about the meals Jonathan was getting at the castle.There were some unusual items in the book. I did not know what to think of "cat's meat sellers." It turns out that in 1861, there were about 1000 people who sold meat for cats in London. They were not popular with many because of the gangs of stray cats that would follow them around yowling. The meat was on a spit and that was the association that the main character had for the meat that was served to him on the way to Dracula's castle.
I, on the other hand, am curious about what the other books written in this genre would be like.It is a Gothic horrror novel and I will not be reading from this genre again.
That's a really good observation. No phones or emails back then, so you had to write everything down that you wanted to tell someone who you couldn't talk to in person. Even when I was a kid, my friends and I would send each other letters, or postcards, when one was away on vacation. These days, of course, no one writes letters anymore.Information was exchanged in long (boring?) letters and people had more time to read and write at leasure.