Read the intereview with author Neil Gaiman. Check out some of his books on Amazon - he's definitely out there. And ironically, he doesn't much like vampires.
http://shelf-life.ew.com/2009/07/31/neil-gaiman-why-vampires-should-go-back-underground/
Analyze what Gaiman thinks about Dracula. Do you agree or disagree with them? Why?
What do you think of his statement: "vampirism essentially came out of the closet as a metaphor for the act of love that kills." What dos he mean (go beyond the Aids analogy)? Can you apply this statment to the vampires in Dracula, Twilight??
Post your own observations, questions, and remarks about this article. When you respond to this posting, DO NOT simply repeat the thoughts of your classmates. You can add something new to a previous comment. You can comment or critique a previous posting, but your main goal is to add something new to the discussion. Remember, try to include direct quotes as much as possible!
8 comments:
While I know everybody seems to instantly link Dracula to sex, I don't see the connection. Other than the three seductive vampires that John encounters in the beginning and that Dr. Van Helsing kills later, there isn't much else to really think about. However, those few segments contain enough to make you really pause in your thinking, because of the easy ways vampires could find their prey. When John describes the "soft shivering touch of the lips on the supersensitive skin" of his throat, you can see how easily some vampires can seduce and then lure their victims for their next meal.
As for the metaphor "the act of love that kills", I believe it describes the inherent danger that comes with being around a vampire. Vampires have that constant thirst for blood and the want to satiate it, shown by the monstrous acts that even pure, good Lucy commits after Dracula turns her.
Gaiman certainly puts out a vibe of knowing exactly what he's talking about, while almost skirting around a question asked. When they ask him what his point of view is on the theme of thrill and fear of power, he instead talks about how vampirism isn't about power. In a way, vampires are completely about power- power to hunt down victims, to overpower them, to consume them to heighten their own power. It's a sort of secret thrill, to steal through the night and take innocent people's lives- if you're evil, I suppose, another thing which Gaiman believes strongly in Victorian vampires. Yet vampires aren't in their right mind, as shown by the vampire-Lucy. She was so sweet and kind in life, but when she is UnDead, she is just as evil and ravaging as the Count.
Hannah...was Lucy sweet and kind in life..or do we see the "real" Lucy in vampire form? In other words, is the vampire Lucy the "real" Lucy? Is she as sweet and kind as Mina? How are these two women different?
The way you and Gaiman dicuss power reminded me of the psychology behind those individuals who commit rape. For them, the act is all about power, right? So are vampires pseudo rapists?
Rape is a term used for forcing sexual encounters upon unwilling people. When you see it in that sense, these vampires aren't pseudo rapists, because they rarely fornicate with their meals-they may play with their food a little, but the subject of raping them doesn't seem to come up. I suppose vampires could be pseudo rapists, if they could ever control their thirst for blood long enough.
As for the differences between Lucy and Mina, I find the main thing that sets them apart to be the thoughtfulness, the quickness of mind and thought, and the steadfast demeanor that Mina possesses. Lucy seems to be the sweetest thing you'd ever meet. I believe that that is the "real" Lucy, because when you get turned into a vampire, you seem to become less responsive to emotions like love, compassion and empathy and sometimes can even forget that they're even there.
Hmmm, sweet is not a word I would used to describe pre or post vampire Lucy.
Is the act of forcefully taking somebody's blood/life source still a type of body rape?
To me Lucy seemed more devious and strange in Vampire form. I feel that her true identity was hidden when she was human due to shyness. When we see her in vampire form she is so different, (at least I thought so.)
Chandra(:
When you said sweet wasn't a word you would use to describe lucy I kind of giggled because Dracula must have thought she was sweet. I don't know if we can use "lol" but that made me kinda want to for some reason.. LOL (:
But anyway...
Gaiman seems to be kind of shallow in his thoughts on vampires I would say. I honestly don't see the sexuality in Dracula that much at all. I see it being more of a love story than a horror story but where is the sex and rape?..
I understand the thought of it being "love that kills" but it isn't as if they are in love with each other and they kill them. I guess the vampires just attracted their food to them? But maybe that's just something that makes it easier to get a meal.
I kind of wish Stoker and Gaiman could have a CNN debate and just have at it. Debate title: Are vampires over rated sexual fiends? (:
Am I taking this assignment too lightly Mrs.Matysak?
No, you are not taking it too lightly. But I think the answers that Stoker would have given during the Victorian age would be a lot different than what he's feel free to say today on CNN. And if Stoker was using Dracula as a kind of metaphor to represent people's ? ? ?, then would that metaphor even be needed in today's society.
Chandra...I think you are exactly correct about Lucy. She is a perfect female vampire, no? The Bloofer Lady!
Mrs. Matty, Lucy really caught my eye on the way her personality completely switched. I definitely agree, she seemed like your average perfect vampire! (:
--- Chandra...
p.s. i forgot my password at the moment sooo thats why i keep having to identify myself :p
Post a Comment