As you continue to read Dracula, pick one of the genres that is used to tell the story (so, for example, pick the genre of a letter). Then pick a specific section of the book that uses that genre (so perhaps the initial letters from Mina to Harker). Explore the significance of using that particular genre while discussing that particular part of the book, in other words, why would Stoker use that genre instead of another genre to develop the section? (Working from my example), why would Stoker use letters to create dialogue between Mina and Harker? Why not another journal entry? I want you to pick your own example to work from and do be very specific when explaining your example.
Essentially, I want you to explore why Dracula is told through the use of embedded genres (a genre instead of a genre). How does this add to the story? How might the story of Dracula read differently if it been done in the form of a more straight-forward novel (keeping in line with the traditional genre conventions of a novel)?
Make sure your thinking is grounded in evidence, so pull from the novel, but feel free to also draw on the other readings we have done.
Engage with others.
300-500 words.
Due: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 by class time.
Part of the purpose of this course is to look at the different ways that the vampire can be, or has been, re-defined by different works--both literary and theoretical. According to Jenkins, Stoker did not define Dracula based on Vlad the Impaler. But other theorists have argued that he did. To loosen up our normal theoretically-driven posts, what do you think? Why do you believe Dracula was defined in the ways that Stoker defined him? What makes Dracula represent "the vampire"--why do we still honor Stoker with creating, defining, and representing the vampire (especially given that there were several vampire stories floating around before Stoker wrote Dracula)? Jenkins says that "all roads lead to [Dracula]"--and I want you to really explore why you believe that's the case.
Given that we have read several different pieces that ask you to redefine your understanding of the vampire, your response may be based in some theory. If up to this point, as some of you have mentioned, you haven't, in some way or another, re-defined or expanded your understanding of the vampire, explore why that may be. Are your own conventions driving your understanding of the vampire blurring the possibility of an expansion? Do you view the vampire through a Dracula-like haze?
**I'm not looking for you to *knock the readings here rather explore your own understanding of the vampire, where it came from, and why the belief is there.
300-500 words. Engage with others.
Due: Thursday, April 19, 2012 by class time.
As we continue to engage with Rai's blog and with our own understanding of media ecology theory, we are going to respond to one of the questions driving this class: what is the ontology of monstrosity that the vampire is caught up in? If we understand that ontology is the study of being or essence of being/existing and that monstrosity is the condition of being "abnormal" then we can begin to question the existence of the vampire. So, for this blog post, I want you to respond to question above--what is the ontology of monstrosity that the vampire is caught up in--by specifically looking at Dracula. What is the ontology of monstrosity that Dracula is defined by? Ground your thinking in both the text, Dracula, and the other readings we have done thus far (could be Halberstam, Jenkins, Rai, McLuhan, etc).
Shoot for 300-450 words. Engage with others. Don't be afraid to loosen your boundaries and think outside the box here, so long as you support what you are saying with the texts we are reading.
Due: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 by class time.
