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.
