As we wrap up reading Dracula, I want you to use this post to do three things: (1) discuss what you've learned about Dracula that surprised you; (2) explain why you believe it'd be essential to a class on vampires AND media ecology theory to read Dracula; and (3) think like a media ecologist and theorize about Dracula--the man, the monster, and the vampire.
Use the readings we have done to support your responses.
Engage with others. 250-400 words.
Due: Thursday, May 3, 2012 by class time.
I think the thing that surprised me most in Dracula is that I had absolutely no sympathy for Dracula. I read Frankenstein before Dracula and although they are both monsters, I was sympathetic with Frankenstein and his plight in life. However I was constantly angry with Dracula and ready for him to be defeated.
ReplyDeleteI think it is essential to read Dracula in a class on vampires because, as we talked about, Dracula is the epitome of the vampire. He is the first and sometimes the only association people have to vampires and he is the example that shaped all other vampires to come. You can’t really understand the vampire without understanding and knowing Dracula. This ties into media ecology theory in the fact that all other vampire literature is formed through the identity of vampires that Dracula creates. To fully understand how this medium works, you must have knowledge of Dracula. You cannot compare Dracula’s medium to other vampire literature’s medium if you haven’t read Dracula.
Dracula is the quintessential monster, a monster that readers fear because of his powers, but at the same time admire because of his abilities. He has characteristics that humans desire, such as immortality. As a monster he is perfect because he appeals to our senses and fears. He is unknown and abnormal which makes him even more terrifying. As a man, we cannot relate to him because he has no human emotions or feelings that cause us to pity him. The closest we come to sympathy is through Mina when she begs the men not to condemn Dracula because she might one day be like him. She is the only character in the novel who offers sympathy to him. As a vampire, Dracula not only fits into the readers’ expectations and stereotypes of the vampire, he is the expectations and stereotypes. All expectations of vampires are made through looking at Dracula so he perfectly measures up to what we might expect.
I think the biggest thing about Dracula that surprised me was the fact that he was not killed by exposure to sunlight. This is one of the few commonly-recognized weaknesses of the vampire and I found it strange that this factor was not present in the novel. Another thing that I was surprised by was very similar to what Katherine said: I did not have any sympathy for Dracula. Usually, I have found that modern vampires to be more sympathetic – to have what could be thought of as a soul. Characters such as Edward Cullen and Louis have altered the perception of what the vampire is and I found that I had no such thoughts about Dracula. He was an irredeemable evil character – the character that everyone loves to hate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite the negative effect that Dracula had on me, he is the quintessential vampire. It’s impossible to talk about vampires for any length of time without mentioning Dracula. His appearance is iconic, influencing and creating knock-offs and parodies without cease. From Count Orlock to Lestat to even Count Chocula, everything we know about the vampire is tied to Dracula. This is important to media ecology because once you understand Dracula, you can begin to understand the vampire. As Jenkins said, “If we are to understand the vampire, Dracula is the wolf in the path. All roads lead to him”. I believe that what Jenkins is trying to say is what I stated earlier: It’s impossible to discuss the nature of the vampire without talking about Dracula. The Count is one of the messages portrayed through the media of Dracula, yet, in the same vein, Dracula created a new medium – the medium of the vampire – to form more messages.
If someone were to say to you, “Think of three monsters,” most of us would probably say Frankenstein’s monster, the Wolfman, and Dracula. Dracula is both man and monster, yet neither at the same time. He contains the desires and fears of humans. His immortality is something humans have always strived for, but the price paid for such powers is great. While some may say that Dracula is a stereotyped representation of the vampire, those same people overlook the fact that when Bram Stoker wrote this book, there were no stereotypes. Dracula is the definition of the vampire and the vampire is the definition of Dracula.
What surprised me most about Dracula was his relationship to the modern vampire. Of course, there are many ways that Dracula is not very similar, but there also a variety of ways in which he is. For instance, Dracula possesses super strength, a hypnotic charm, and near invulnerability. On the other hand, his looks, as well as the amount of “human” qualities he possess are quite different. The modern media creation, that is the vampire is about as close to a human as monster can get. Their increased level of humanity allows for human attraction. While some may argue that it is in fact the modern vampire's supernatural qualities that make him so attractive, I beg to differ. Unlike Dracula, the modern vampire has been pumped so full of human emotion that he becomes relatable. This is why humans fall for vampires. Dracula turns out to be completely inhuman and entirely foreign. This is why once Harker and the others understood who Dracula is, there is no conscious attraction.
ReplyDeleteThis idea goes back to what Katherine and Zach said about Dracula. They both were surprised at the lack of sympathy that they had for Dracula. This is at least partially due to the fact that Dracula was not human, and therefore almost pure monster. Without the proper amount of humanity required to equalize the monster-human balance, Dracula naturally becomes a pure monster, a creature whose only purpose is to instill fear.
Dracula is an important novel to read in a vampire/media ecology class. First of all, it's important for a class about vampires, simply because, like Katherine said “Dracula is the epitome of the vampire.” He is essentially the one who started it all. In order to properly understand the vampire, it is important to learn the origin of the vampire. As Rai would say, “We must look at the vampire not as a punctum, but as a continual being, a duration.” In terms of media ecology, Dracula is an important novel because it represents a very unique medium which incorporates many styles of writing. And, according to McLuhan, the medium greatly affects possible interpretations, by way of altering perspective.
From the way in which Dracula was written, we were lead to have certain ideas of the monster. The first of ideas is Dracula as a monster. Through the perspectives addressed in the novel, like Harker's journal for example, we receive a somewhat biased view of Dracula that may actually act as a tool which inaccurately distorts Dracula into the vision of a monster. It can be concluded that, had the story been told from Dracula's perspective, opinions may have formed very differently.
What surprised me most about Dracula was the complete helplessness of his victims like Lucy or Mina. It seems that in modern vampire myths, there is always a chance for the vicitims to defend themselves, but in this novel it was as though the two women could do nothing on their own against the vampire. They were completely defenseless and had to rely on the acts of others for a shot at life. Additionally just as both Katherine and Zach said before, there was absolutely nothing to sympathize with in his character. He was purely a monster with seemingly no remorse or redeeming qualities which is somewhat rare to find in modern literature it seems.
ReplyDeleteDracula is an essential piece of work for a writing class on vampires because it is the most prevalent piece of writing on a vampire in today’s culture. Dracula is what most people see when they think of a vampire and almost defines what it is to be a vampire in modern culture. When media ecology is added to the mix, that same pervasiveness in culture is also the reason that Dracula must be included in the class. With how much Dracula is seen and discussed and the average person’s life time, the way that Dracula is portrayed in any medium conveys a message about the culture he comes from and is used in. Just as Katherine said, to understand how the vampire medium works, you have to understand the most prevalent vampire, Dracula.
Dracula is one of the most recognized monsters in all of history. He is also one of the darkest and most dangerous. He embodies many of the things that humanity desires but turns them into a curse. He serves as an explanation for some of the unexplainable horrors of society in his comparison to Vlad the Impaler. He embodies all that the vampire is. He reveals societies fascination with horrors, death, and riches. He contains all that humanity most desires and most abhors. Dracula stands as a representation of what society wants and cannot have, with a good reason why they don’t want it.
One of the things that really surprised me of Dracula was his lack of control in some points of the novel. For example, when Harker is in Dracula's castle, and the three women try to seduce him, Dracula comes in and sees what's going on and spazzes out. I'm so used to vampires who are calm and collected, and only freak out when they can't resist blood. However, every other vampire we've seen seems to be really calm and collected all the time. Edward Cullen is super quiet, cool, and collected all the time - but the only thing that he is moved by is the presence of blood, which is a physical desire. On the other hand, Dracula has fits of fury a lot throughout the novel. He also tended to be very snippy with Harker, which made him uncomfortable all the time. He also doesn't try to mask his strength - every time he touched something, Harker seemed to notice his ridiculous strength. I also agree with Katherine when she said that his lack of sympathy surprised her. He was very vicious - especially the weird part when he forced Mina to drink blood out of his chest. He literally did anything to achieve power.
ReplyDeleteThis teaches me that not all monsters are the same. I, like Katherine, also felt sympathy for Frankenstein. Just because he's a monster doesn't mean he's going to be this vicious, psycho animal like Dracula. Monsters are varied - they are collages. Media ecology theory is about realizing that media is the message. Monsters portrayed in different ways are going to provide a new definition of what a monster is. This realization that Dracula is actually different from other vampires I have heard about just reinforces the need to keep an open mind. Just because Dracula is a vampire doesn't mean he's going to be a calm, sexy guy, reading everyone's minds like Edward...as well as how the fact that he's a vampire doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to react weirdly to sunlight.
He is typical in the sense that he can't cross garlic or a cross, or the fact that he can take the shape of various animals. He also has ridiculous amounts of strength, and sleeps in a coffin. He is very stereotypic in that way. However, Dracula embodies so many other characteristics that other vampires don't. He is so similar to humans, yet he is so different. He is so similar to other monsters, yet he is so different as well. Therefore, Dracula is unique in that he can't be defined easily - he is a hybrid of the vampire, the monster, and the human.
For me, the most surprising aspect about Dracula was how little anyone knew about him. I found it really strange that no one questioned the man that once was. No one but Mina recognizes Dracula as a tortured spirit that needs to be set free from their evil vampireness, like Lucy needed to be and Mina implored to be, should she be transformed. I feel like this is a very telling aspect of the culture of the time, and even gives insight into the way we think today. Once we realize that something/one is monstrous, we tend to completely ignore that the monstrous being may not have always been that way.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I disagree with Katherine, Zach, and pretty much everyone else that has posted thus far about the lack of sympathy they have for Dracula. I agree that it is almost impossible to muster up any sympathy for Dracula, but I think our lack of knowledge of the character is the main reason for that. The comparison to Frankenstein’s monster is a good example. We as readers were given full insight into the monster’s plight, and though he commits monstrous deeds, we understand where this monstrosity stems from. In the case of Dracula, of course no one has sympathy for him, but do we as readers have sympathy for Lucy and Mina? Wouldn’t it be logical to think that somewhere along the line Dracula was once a victim preyed on by a soulless vampire just like them?
I think this is the most important thing to remember when looking at Dracula. Like Steph said, “monsters are collages.” Dracula is important to study because he is, like many have said, the most prevalent image of the vampire we have today. He is a “punctum” in the evolution of vampires, but he in and of himself is also a collage that contains the fluid aspect of the “ontology of monstrosity.” Though the image of Dracula we have is a soulless monster, if we also see Dracula as a being in existence, he must have more depth than eternally existing as nothing more than a ruthless vampire. Because of this it is somehow possible to have some sort of sympathy for the “original” vampire, just like we have sympathy for the more modern, conscience driven vampires that are so prevalent today.
I was largely surprised in Dracula by his vulnerability. I figured that vampires have always been perceived as strong and immortal and powerful monsters, however, Dracula has so many weaknesses that it seems difficult to even call him immortal. Not only is he susceptible to all holy objects/garlic/mirrors etc… but he DIE without blood. If he can die by simply sitting in a room doing nothing, I would hesitate to say that that is immortal. Also, he must find a resting place at night in either a coffin or the earth. With all of these vulnerabilities and restrictions on his existence, I was really surprised to feel in the end that Dracula was the weaker being between the human and the vampire.
ReplyDeleteLike McLuhan discusses, the evolution of characters says a lot about the change of their message. Since many theorists cite Dracula as the origin of most vampiric figures and characters, reading the book will allow us to understand the transformation (and thus the figurative representations) that vampires have undertook. When using media ecology theory in class, it is helpful to have a comparison to what you are analyzing so that you can contrast differences and find key attributes that stand out. By knowing Dracula we are better able to find important aspects of the “medium,” which will in turn help us understand the vampire.
I found Eric’s point about the power of the point of view the story is told through very interesting. I agree, that had the reader hear the story through Dracula’s perspective (i.e: “I feel so alone. Mina warms my soul and brings light to my darkness. I am ecstatic to spend all of eternity with her”) we may have perceived him much less monstrous. However, since the reader only is given tellings of his actions through Harken’s journal, our view is distorted. This leads me to question what Stoker’s intention in the genres he used to tell this story were to the message. Yes, this was a novel, but it was not a classic novel in any sense. It used mainly letters and journal entries. Through this medium, I understood the story as much more factual. The message of temptation and disorder and death that follows monstrosity was finite due to the medium of the novel.
Even though I hadn’t previously read Dracula I have seen Coppola’s adaptation. Subsequently, what surprised me most about the book were some of the major differences between the book and the movie. Obviously most adaptations aren’t shot for shot reiterations of the book, but Coppola made some major changes to both the beginning and the end, which kind of shape the rest of the story. In the book Dracula doesn’t really have an explicit back story, but the movie begins by explaining that Dracula was originally a Romanian knight who defended the church and only renounced god after his wife was tricked into killing herself and Mina is the reincarnated version of his late wife. The book references Dracula’s past as a warrior, but it never talks about his dead wife forcing him to renounce god and become a vampire. The ending is also really different. In the book Dracula is simply slain by Harker and they have a kid and everyone lives happily ever after, but in the movie Mina goes with Dracula into his castle where he’s forgiven by god and then dies – no mention of a kid or a happy family – if anything Harker kind of let’s go of Mina. I feel like these differences tie into what Katherine and Zach’s comments about Dracula being an unsympathetic character and I agree, the thing that surprised me most (considering the movie was my only point of reference) was just how unsympathetic Dracula is.
ReplyDeleteI think that some sort of consideration of Dracula in important in a vampire/media ecology class because the character of Dracula is the first to gain serious cultural relevance. Because Dracula was the jumping off point for vampires he’s kind of the point of reference for all of the subsequent 20th and 21st century vampire characters. The stark differences between the Stoker’s Dracula and other vampire characters raise questions about the ontology of monstrosity, or the evolution of the monster and how that evolution is influenced by changing media related and societal influences.
Thinking as a media ecology theorist – I think that Dracula is a really concentrated distillation and composition of societal fears and desires. The combination of man and monster make the character both frightening and relatable – just like most cultural anxieties. I think that the character has become less scary over the years because no one has really reinvented the vampire, but instead just tacked on new characteristics via “and,” and in doing so the stuff that used to make him really scary has become de-concentrated by all of the new stuff that’s been tacked on (good-looks, a soul, superhero like powers etc,) and ineffective.
I think the most surprising part about Dracula was Harker’s initial reactions to his encounter with the vampire. It is kind of strange to think about how he does not instantly realize that Dracula is vampire. In today’s society, because the image of the vampire is everywhere you see, even a small child would have been able to connect the dots and realize that Dracula is not a normal, living being. This goes back to the role the vampire plays in popular culture. What used to be a repulsive, unknown creature has become a common character in romance novels and films. To me, it should have been obvious that Dracula was a vampire just from what Harker heard about him before he reaches the monster’s mansion. Then again, the continual presence of the vampire in popular culture has built a concrete image of this creature in my brain. When I hear of an anti-Christian figure of the night, I automatically think of the vampire. Obviously people of the early nineteenth century were not as exposed to media containing vampire figures or characters as we are.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else has said before me, Dracula is the quintessential vampire. He is the father of the vampires, and ultimately, created the image that the next one hundred years of media would build upon. It is essential that we learn about Dracula, especially since we are in a vampire writing class. Not only is Dracula the pioneer of all vampires, but he can also be used as a comparison to modern day monsters. Vampires such as Edward Cullen are considered attractive and beautiful, which can be contrasted against the strange, perverse outward appearance Harker first notices in Dracula. Ultimatley, Dracula can be used as an indication of how time has affected the vampire. We can measure the change of the vampire in the media from comparing modern characters with the behavior and actions displayed by the Count in Stoker’s novel.
The man, monster, and vampire are not only dependent upon each other, but they are also intertwined. The monster is simply a reflection of the man’s inner desires, fears, and hopes. The vampire is restricted by the “monstrosity” that certain creatures are perceived to possess. Therefore, each entity is completely dependent on the other. The media forms an image of the vampire that is contradictory to its purpose: to simply house our instinctual drives when we are too embarrassed or too afraid to explore them ourselves. Perhaps society is to blame for this.
I partially disagree with Eric; he states “we receive a somewhat biased view of Dracula that may actually act as a tool which inaccurately distorts Dracula into the vision of a monster.” I believe that vision of the monster is what is truly distorted, not the vision of the vampire. It is the media that is the message, not the content.
The most surprising thing for me while reading Dracula was the same as Zach: Dracula was not turned into dust from exposure to UV rays of the sun. All of the vampire movies that I have seen up to this point have sunlight as one of the few weaknesses of the vampire. In Dracula, he is weakened by sunlight but is not killed by it. I found this interesting because it got me thinking about how the switch happened that made vampires into something/one that were killed by UV rays. In the Blade series, the majority of their killing is done by a UV ray gun. I found this switch in weaknesses really interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt is essential for a class on vampires to read Dracula, because it really is the quintessential vampire text. It is not the first piece of literature about vampires, but is by far the most defining. No other text went into as much detail as this one about every aspect of the vampire. I would be willing to say that to know what a vampire is, you must know what Dracula is. Connecting this to media ecology theory, I will go back to the saying, “the medium is the message.” Dracula is the medium upon which we can get the message of what a vampire is. It is important to read Dracula and get to know the vampire so that we can begin to understand what a vampire is, but also keep in mind that it is not a stationary thing but rather an assemblage of other texts too. Dracula gives us the best foundation possible so that we may add our thoughts about vampires that we may gain from other sources on top of what we know about Dracula.
Dracula is not a man, a monster or a vampire, but is rather all three at the same time. While reading the novel, there are distinct moments when I felt that Dracula could have been any one of these, or all of these at the same time. He displays traits of all of them, but also contradicts the other ones. Dracula really is an assemblage of the monster and the man and can be seen as the perfect hybridization.
I think one of the things that surprised me about Dracula, the novel, was the sexual appeal. I always related Edward with our sexualization and “defanging” of the vampire by making him sexy and sparkly. But apparently the vampire has been from the start. For example Mina describes him as looking, “It was hard, and cruel, and sensual, and big white teeth” I think it’s neat that although there is a constant comparison of how little Edward resembles Dracula, a lot of the characteristics hold true. For example Edward has telepathic abilities, has problems with religion, and is very sexually attractive. I think it is interesting that as Haley said the female protagonists of Dracula are “completely defenseless and had to rely on the acts of others for a shot at life.” If anything, Twilight has stuck close to this model with a very weak female lead in Bella. Also it is surprising how much of an obsession with individuals like Harker, Lucy, and Mina Dracula has. I usually associate monsters with mass chaos and blind choice of victims. I think its surprising how possessive Dracula is, yelling out at one point about Harker, “This man belongs to me!”
ReplyDeleteVampires today cannot be explained or understood properly without knowing the ontology behind the monster. One of the only main mentions of vampires before Dracula was Karl Marx’s comparison of the vampire to capitol, a very simple it “sucks blood” connotation is one of the only bases of the vampire. Unlike Zach and Katherine I think to get any solid grounding as a fundamental monster, Dracula could not be very well defined. The vampire has been twisted and sculpted into thousands of adaptations but still holds true to some overall arching characteristics, which means Dracula retains the ability to be the prototype.
Dracula looks like a man, acts like a monster, and is expressed through the medium of the vampire. As Abi said, the vampire embraces, intertwines, and can only been viewed with all three components. To be respected and counted as a monster, the monster has to be feared as a monster, relatable as a man, and expressed through the vampire.
“Edward Cullen is a evolutionary step from the species forefather, Dracula” (Charles Darwin 1890)
ReplyDelete“Edward Cullen is as far above Dracula as Dracula is above the amoeba.”
(Captain Kirk 1965)
First there was Dracula, then there was Edward Cullen, and what comes next... probably a male specimen modeled with my body and Tom Brady's face. Dracula is the beginning of the modern vampire and because this class is an interpretation of the vampire as we know it, knowledge of the origin of the vampire is integral. The modern vampire has evolved largely because of the changing mediums through which it is expressed. Dracula is a monster and what surprised me most about this book is the fact that there was very little expression of him as a man. The modern vampire as we know it, appeals to the senses and although they still can embody some of our more primal fears, they have evolved greatly from Dracula.
In the book I was amazed that Stoker failed to define Dracula much beyond his atrocious actions. The dialogue he engaged in was minor and the resulting characterization was minimal. He was in essence nothing more than a monster to be killed by the heroes in the story. If the title expressed the name of the most significant character in the book it would be Harker.
However, the fact that Dracula lacked the humanity that many modern monsters do was not unexpected. What I meant earlier by stating that Dracula was expressed only as a monster and not as a man is the fact that a modern vampire can be characterized much more by their human traits than the secondary monstrosity. Edward Cullen is appealing because he is abnormal, he embodies many of the things we fear yet at the same time lust. However it is not these abnormalities that define him; it is the human traits that make him relatable and allows the audience to empathize with him. This stark contrast to the Dracula of old was the most surprising thing in this novel. This change has been propelled by shifting mediums which highlight the vampire visually and with characterization over the long term and hence evolution has occured. This book was vital to our understanding of the evolution of the monster.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most appalling and engrossing parts about Dracula was Jonathan’s interaction with Dracula and obliviousness to his genus. I find it baffling that Jonathan could not make the connections and tie together all the discernible strings to lead to Dracula’s overwhelming identity of a vampire. It initially awe striking and irritating that Jonathan was unaware of the profound threat and eminent danger he was in being in the presence of a powerful creature because as an individual in the 21st century I could pick out a vampire from a line up of thousands due to my exposure and experience with modern day imagery. The vampire has not only undergone an evolutionary change in transforming from the epitome of horror to a captivating attraction, but it has also gained supreme popularity and spread through the cognizance of society. The considerable the amount the vampire has morphed over time is extremely evident, but what became even more palpably clear was how much our humanity has transformed. People of the 19th century were recognizably unfamiliar and lacking experience in what encompasses the vampire from how Jonathan is portrayed. He was warned numerous times before heading to an isolated and eerie mansion and a plethora of signs were presented to him within milliseconds of meeting Dracula that a vampire was gracing his presence. It was incredibly impacting to see the great leap of evolution humankind has gained in vampire expertise. As an individual with only a slight grasp of vampire entailments, I feel more inclined to be able to pin the tail on the vampire than individuals from centuries ago that have had more blatant encounters. My perception of society in correlation to the vampire is an ever-oscillating viewpoint, acquiring fresh insights with every new vampirism confrontation.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, Dracula is the prominent and preliminary pillar of vampirism. It is fundamental to learn and immerse into the culture of the founding father of bloodsucking horror, in order to understand and recognize the changes that have surfaced over time. We must understand and come to terms with the past, in order to appreciate and build upon the future, specifically in reading and writing. As Billy states, “It is important to read Dracula and get to know the vampire so that we can begin to understand what a vampire is, but also keep in mind that it is not a stationary thing but rather an assemblage of other texts too.” I agree with this wholeheartedly. As individuals undergoing continual transformations and revelations, comprehending them means by which the vampire has as well is imperative. Learning about a creature that now plays such a flagrant role in our society, it is an obligation and fascination to become more than just mere acquaintances with the vampire, but all-inclusive specialists.
In the mind of a media ecology theorist I believe that Dracula is a multifarious entity interwoven with the intricacies of society’s subterranean thoughts, desires, and fears. The culmination of the synchronization of the man and beast is both distressing and spellbinding. The vampire imagery has undergone intense modifications that drain and dull it to less of a horror and more of an allure.