dracula. bram stoker. (4)

i never got on the vampire bandwagon.   i've never read (or have a desire to read) "twilight"; never watched "true blood" (again who has premium cable?), i will admit that i have sat through episodes of "vampire diaries" with my cousin erin but nothing in our vampire saturated culture caught my interest. i also never got caught up in the anne rice's work either. i was young when "interview with a vampire" came out and loved "queen of the dead" but mostly cos stuart townsend was hot. so "dracula" was my first vampire read and i mean where else does one start but with the original vampire book. (question: do all other vampire works acknowledge dracula as the og vampire? like does edward come from his line?)

the funny thing about reading "dracula" is that you have to read it with a clean slate.  you have to act as if you have never heard of edward, or buffy, even dracula himself (i mean you are meeting the guy for the first time, if its your first reading). if not, you will be frustrated with characters for their lack of vampire knowledge.  i first encountered this with jonthan harker, and what feels like his inability to instantly recognize the true nature of count dracula.  though i shouldn't be so harsh on jonathan, for someone who has never heard of vampires superstitions prior to his working with count dracula, he did well with recognizing that the lack of mirrors or his host's disappearance during the day and lack of appetite at dinner didn't add up to that of a normal human being.  i mean the weird group sex fantasies were a good red flag that something was up too, but he did well in trusting his suspicions. 

another character i wanted to kick because of her lack of vampire 101 was lucy's mother, i know garlic smells gross (i personally associate it with food so love the smell of it) but she should have never removed that garlic garland from around lucy's neck.  but i have to remember she didn't know better.  and in addition to this, why was mina the only one that noticed the two red marks on lucy's neck and in what world would anyone see vampire marks on their neck and think they pricked themselves with a pin!?!? (that is like girls trying to convince themselves that their hickey looks like a curling iron burn!) but i guess their lack of knowledge is in line with the tradition of horror, where we, as the viewer, always know better than the victim (and would have never ran in that direction.)

as much as i was upset with their naivete, i was impressed with their, well primarily, van helsing's medical knowledge.  (and yes, as i read, i totally envisioned huge jackman as van helsing.  swoon.)  what amazed me was that van helsing performed blood transfusions!  "dracula" was published in 1897 so i guess it isn't as old as i thought it was.  but still blood transfusions seem like a modern (granted "dracula" is turn of the century.) phenomenon.  maybe i'm biased because i'm a chicken (fear of needles) when it comes to giving blood and think the current way of giving blood isn't that sophisticated, so i can't imagine what people a hundred years had to endure. so when van helsing suggest that they perform a transfusion for lucy. i immediately googled on my phone and it turns out (thanks to wikipedia) that the first successful blood transfusion was performed in 1818 by british obstetrician dr. james blundell.  pretty impressive!  and how create of stoker to use it as a means to try to combat the dracula's converting of lucy to the darkside! 

blood, obviously is very important throughout all of "dracula".  that is his source of life, (it's our source of life too).  but there was one blood issue that i figured would arise especially with dracula's female victims, but it was never addressed.  (and if stoker really wanted to push victorian buttons he should have talked about this.)  but what effect does menstruation have on vampires?  a small amount of blood could provoke a vampire, when jonathan nicked himself while shaving, the count reacted with "eyes blazed with a sort of demonic fury" and he "made a grab" at jonthan's throat.  imagine what a woman bleeding for 3-7 days could cause a vampire to do? does twilight even address bella's cycle?  i mean it seems like a good deal for edward.  we, women throw out that blood each month, so bella could start using a diva cup and save it for him.  that sounds gross but i think it's thoughtful.  i mean did buffy the vampire slayer ever discuss that in the movie or in the series?  i mean at the risk of sounding like a perv, this could be the premise for a great twilight parody porn.  i know, inappropriate!  but is it . . .

it's not.  that joke would be in stoker's vein of humor, if he told jokes about oral sex, not sure if he did, but he did write about it.  i was shocked when i read mina recounting her interaction with the count:

With that he pulled open his shirt, and with his long sharp nails opened a vein in his breast.  When the blood began to spurt out, he took my hands in one of his, holding them tight, and with the other seized my neck and pressed my mouth to the wound, so that I must either suffocate or swallow some of the--Oh my God!  my God! what have I done?

when i first read it, i thought i was a bit of a pervert for thinking inappropriately about what i had read but after reading the intro written by brooke allen, it is to mimic fellatio. vampires were sex-driven creatures. and if one googles there are tons of essays on sexuality and "dracula". i came across one that explained how the two dots on lucy's neck were suppose to resemble a vagina?!?! that seems to be stretching it for me!

there are also tons of essays on stoker being sexist and his portrayal of female sexuality in "dracula" as well. but without getting too deep into the topic. i will say that i did not find "dracula" sexist. the sad reality for us women is that we have to be both the virgin and the whore, this dichotomy has plagued us throughout all of history and our current mass media only endorses. so yes we are the orgy loving vampire trio along and virginal lucy needing men to keep us safe. it's like luda says "he wants a lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets."

also i did not find stoker to be sexist due to the fact that mina was a strong female character. i would add her to my canon of amazing females. i found it interesting how she criticized the "new woman" and their unconventional views of marriage yet her own involvement to stop dracula was unconventional. it's her intelligence and brilliance that pieces together the accounts that lead to the exposure and ultimately destruction of dracula (sorry for the spoiler but for a split second when i was reading, i thought he was going to survive). in this light mina to me is a true feminist, one that is not embarrassed to hold on to conventional female roles yet still has the open-mindless to embrace new ones.

all in all, is dracula worth a reread? i enjoyed it, so yes. it's clever, and i enjoyed how it was told from different perspectives. and if it's a choice between this and "twilight", go for this!

ps i was also upset with "twilight" because in "dracula", dracula and the wolves get along? was there some great schism that stephenie meyer included in "twilight" to explain the team edward/team jacob hatred?

quotations:

"if ever a face meant death--if looks could kill--we saw it at that moment."

(is this where the phrase come froms?)

pss- i have included a little film
short by spike jonze that features mina from "dracula". enjoy!

frankenstein. mary shelley.

back in october, i decided to do this whole monster books reading in honor of halloween.  i picked mary shelley's "frankenstein" to start.

if you are a hardcore fan of this blog, you may have noticed that i didn't number this one.  it lacks a number because i didn't check it out from the library. i read my own copy.  my copy is ten years old and a souvenir from my time on the delano high school academic decathlon team.  sadly, like any other required high school reading, i did not read "frankenstein." what makes my non-reading even sadder is the fact that i had a class period specifically for academic decathon in which we spent weeks reading the novel and i still did not read it.  in my (our team's) defense, our advisor left us in the asb room to read on our own.  i know we were the nerds/geeks of the school, but we were still teens and some of us were starting to show symptoms of senioritis.  when given the choice between reading or playing with random toys leftover from afternoon rally games, we always chose the later.  (sorry ms. andreas if you are reading this.)

and sorry mary shelley but the 28 year old me got why the 17 year old could not get into the book. it is quite slow to start. at first the book is a series of letters from captain walton to his sister explaining his voyage to the north pole. it all seems unnecessary until we find out that captain walton saw some monster out in the ice and then finds victor frankenstein who then shares the story of his monster making. (side note: i would also like to encourage everyone to stop calling the green monster with bolts in his neck, frankenstein, he is actually frankenstein's monster. frankenstein is the scientist. i think a modern family episode covered this but wanted to reiterate the distinction.)

back to the creature making, i personally found it disappointing. i was expecting a grandiose and grotesque description of how the creature was created start to finish but there wasn't that much detail. i get that shelley prolly did not have an strong bio background but she could have utilized her imagination more . . . though i guess the whole creating life from human remains is original on its own and i, having grown up with frankenstein's monster every halloween, find it commonplace so i may have had too great of expectations . . . sorry shelley for being so harsh.

i was really harsh on shelley a second time, when frankenstein came into contact with his creation for the second time. i was upset cos all of sudden the creature knew how to talk. i was tempted to stop reading right there and then due to that being so far fetch (i know, like creating a monster is so realistic). but i read on and accepted how he was educated. i really wanted things to work out with him and that family. it was so sweet how he did chores for them. so i was extremely sad when the old man was scared of him. i know the creature turns into a monster but he just wanted to be loved.

it's interesting because even with all the killing he does, i did have a soft spot for the creature. he turns into to monster for understandable reasons; rejection by the ones he loved the most and the realization that he would never have a future mate and would be left all alone in this world. (i mean we all sided with carrie bradshaw in the first sex and the city movie when she went crazy for the same reasons!) also if frankenstein would have nurtured his creation at the beginning versus rejecting him, the creature would have never turn into a monster. (there is an early child development thesis in there somewhere). and they all could have lived happily ever after.

maybe i am just optimistic but i really believe that if frankenstein created a mate for his creature, she would not have turned into a monster. i understood his worries about her rejecting the original creature as a mate or her being just as violent the first, but he was only violent due to lack of affection . . . and then not getting his way (but his demand was for a mate would equate as affection as well). i believe she was would have learned by example just like he did. the creature's ability to learn how to care for others based on the example of the brother and sister caring for their blind father proved he was a blank slate with some kind of "soul" versus innately evil and soulless. he would have never attempted to do chores for them if by nature he was evil; he had to have a heart to respond as he did. so if frankenstein set up a loving environment for the mate, she would have developed according. (again a ECD thesis.)

all of this reminded me of kazuo ishiguro's "never let me go" and it's questioning of whether a man-made life would still have a "soul"? being one that doesn't believe too strongly in religion, i believe that yes the creatures created like frankenstein's creature and the children of "never let me go" would have a soul but not one necessarily issued by god. i believe that the essence within humans and animals to nurture their young ultimately is what constitute a soul. one possess a soul, if they show the ability to care for another's life and well-being, which therefore demonstrates the understanding of the sacredness of life. it can be assumed that i am supporting the idea that god gives everything souls when in fact, i believe that we gain our "souls" as we gain knowledge. which i guess is kinda how adam and eve started. but it's not something that is just given via god but developed from our environment. so due to this both frankenstein's "monster" and the clones of "never let me go" have souls and should have been treated as so. also in the future when we do start cloning people, i will still stick to my declaration above.

so i guess mary shelley's frankenstein is a lot deeper than just a monster story. aside from sorting out what is a soul, maybe it's suppose to be a discussion on religion as well? the subtitle is "the modern promethus", i guess frankenstein stole the secret of life from the gods? or is god like victor frankenstein? creating humans and then being frighten by us, abandon us to roam the earth? thus religion is our search to come to terms with what we are, just as the creature sought out frankenstein? all in all, i am glad that i finally read this, it wasn't too much of a page turner for me but has some important underlying themes.

also i wikipedia'ed shelley because i was curious as to whether she received recognition as the writer because she was a woman. it's interesting cos i always think of the past as being prim and proper but there was a lot of scandals in her life. she believed in free love and her sister got knocked up by lord byron. i mean it's the stuff of british tabloids!

this side of paradise. f. scott fitzgerald (3)

i read "the great gatsby" and thought it was not all that great.  it should have been called "the good gatsby" or maybe "the decent gatsby", but great seemed like a misnomer.  but people love their f. scott fitzgerald, so i decided to pick up another of his books to see what he was all about.  i decided to start with his first work "this side of paradise".

and i have to say "the great gatsby" did not do fitzgerald justice.  "this side of paradise" was filled with so many great lines, but then again i think i'm made of the same cloth as f. scott and zelda fitzgerald.  people made of that cloth simply want a life of leisure, constantly in the pursuit of not only happiness but entertainment as well, even if it beyond their means.  

fitzgerald stringed these pearls of wisdom throughout his book.  the thoughts and opinions of his two character amory blaine and rosalind:

i'm a slave to my emotions, to my likes, to my hatred of boredom, to most of my desires”- armory


"i'm as restless as the devil and have a horror of getting fat or falling in love and growing domestic." -amory
(this is seriously my biggest fear in life)

"her philosophy is carpe diem for herself and laissez faire for others."
(i try to seize the day (though not the responsible day), but am pretty lack when it comes to other people's lives, do what you want.)



i like sunshine and pretty things and cheerfulness-- i dread responsibility."-rosalind 
(i swear his words not mine.)



i googled f. scott to find out more about his life because i admired his words of wisdom.  and i now get all the fuss over the fitzgeralds.  who doesn't want to party all night and lead glamorous lives.  i also learned a little something about "the lost generation" and just like i thought i was a beat before i feel more aligned with this generation. (coincidentally, there are many similarities between the two. both were disillusioned by the world wars and had looser and less conservative values/morals than prior to the war.) 

as i was reading i couldn't help but think history does repeat itself.  armory said of himself, "i'm a cynical idealist", and i think this is an adequate description of my generation.  i remember reading an article once about how my generation, the millennials, are extremely skeptical about the government.  we don't trust the government especially when it comes to war.  however, even though we are cynical about how our country is ran, we are extremely hopefully.  i mean that obey giant obama hope poster worked on us like no other (i own a shirt).  we are also extremely optimistic about what the future holds for us.  so i guess that would make us cynical idealists?

the major similarity between us, the lost generations and the beats was that a war left us all disillusioned.   though we didn't have a great war, i think that 9/11 and the war against terrorism has effected my generation the same way that world war I effected the lost generation.  for millennials, we were "lost" or confused because the enemy we were fighting wasn't necessarily the country that attacked us.  furthermore, we wanted to be patriotic but couldn't support a war that in our eyes wasn't justified.  fitzgerald's generation was lost because they fought a world war and came back to lives in turmoil.  in addition to this, what the lost generations and my generation also share is a period of economic turmoil; the great depression and our current recession.  as resulted both could be considered "lost." this loss of faith for fitzgerald's described as:

"we want to believe. young students try to believe in older authors, constituents try to believe in their congressmen, countries try to believe in their statesmen, but they can't. too many voices, too much scattered, illogical ill-considered criticism.”

this description is also relevant today. we want to have faith (our hope) but know it is impossible.  as i read i armory's viewpoints on politics and the economy i couldn't help but draw parallels to the way the world is today.

but not everything stays static.   i was surprised by the whole hotel checking in incident.  its crazy to imagine a time when the only man and woman pair that could stay at a hotel room was husband and wife!  not that i'm a floozy but its difficult to imagine having to show paperwork to prove you can stay in a hotel room with a woman!

in addition to this words of wisdom on life and politics, fitzgerald impressed me with his clever descriptions and writing style.  he opened book two with a clever description of a mess in a girl's room.  he wrote:

"great disorder consisting of the following items (1):  seven or eight empty cardboard boxes, with tissue-paper tongues hanging panting from their mouths; (2) an assortment of street dresses mingled with their sisters of the evening, all upon the table, all evidently new; (3) a roll of tulle, which has lost its dignity and wound itself tortuously around everything in sight . . . "

i bolded my favorite line.  it was almost like a poem in the middle of the novel.  an ode to a messy room.  i also enjoyed book two because fitzgerald switched styles and wrote it like a play, which i found interesting because everything that surrounded rosalind was melodramatic.

i thoroughly enjoyed "this side of paradise".  i found him clever, wise and delightful.  and i am glad i gave him another go versus just keeping "the great gatsby" as the only book of his that i read.

selected stories of franz kafka. franz kafka. (2)

trying to revisit my high school years, i decided to read franz kafka's "the metamorphosis" next.  also i had read haruki murakami's "kafka on the shore" and had been meaning to pick up some kafka.  all i remember from "the metamorphosis" was that gregor turned into a giant cockroach and of course that apple getting stuck in his back.  for some odd reason, that apple stuck on his back really stuck with my group of high school's friends (we were dorks remember). i think my friend mona in particular was traumatized by its occurrence.  i personally can't think of metamorphosis without picturing a large roach with an apple.  (this would make a good halloween costume . . . my friend chrissie has a cockroach costume, i am going to recommend that she does it.)

back to the novel.  on my second reading, i still felt bad for gregor.  bad enough he turns into a bug but his family is frightened of him.  (quick side note:  but apparently gregor doesn't necessarily turn into a cockroach, the word kafka uses doesn't translate into cockroach, in fact it is closer to vermin, so it's kinda open to interpretation, for me personally i use the cockroach one.)   it even sadder how his family abandons him, especially since he spent his human life supporting them. his sister does start off helping him, but then she grows tired of the task and disgusted by him.  and which makes it even more heartbreaking is the fact that he was working to help support his sister in her violin playing.   if my sister or brother or even close friend turned into a giant bug, i wouldn't abandon them like, but would take care of them. bugs don't gross me out so am confident i could do it. i would be like geena davis in "the fly".  though in the end, she does kill him, but wasn't it as he requested?

i hate to brag but i was good student in high school yet i don't remember the analysis that was presented to us. now as an adult, i take it as a warning that if you become a slave to money and work, you'll eventually end up a cockroach. prior to turning into a roach, gregor had a sad life (possibly sadder than being a bug), he was a traveling salesman and all he did was work. he did not have a social life and only interacted with his family. this need or demand to work is not healthy for an individual. and in turning gregor into roach, kafka was critiquing the capitalistic emphasis on labor. i guess kafka was a marxist? (i googled but found no definite answer.) marx did have his theory on alienation of workers as a result to their laboring as part of the capitalist machine. and how much more alienated can one get then turning into a cockroach. greogr was alienated not only from his family but also from his own self-identity, he was a stranger in his own body. he turned into something beyond his own recognition. and if kafka wasn't a marxist, he does prove the harm of devoting one's life to work.

in college, i took a soci class and was assigned excerpts from "working" by studs terkel. our professor had us read it to demonstrate how a person's identities is tied into their occupation. it's interesting and true. when meeting someone for the first time, one of the first questions asked is "so what to you do?" this is definitely an american thing (it's due to our capitalist economy). when i was unemployed, i noticed just how frequently this question was asked. when working one doesn't notice but there was a bit of embarrassed me when i answered that i was unemployed though i did start to answer "hanging out" or "enjoying life".

during my two years of unemployment, i had one conversation frequently about this issue of one's work being one's identity. i have a friend who is the model of a worker bee, he is also a capricorn. and he couldn't stomach me when i was not working. but as i often reminded him, i do not want to be defined by my work but by my life. to demonstrate this point, i often said when i die, my gravestone will not list out my work resume, but will instead list if i was mother or wife. furthermore, people will talk about my quality of life at my funeral instead of my salary history. i mean when i am old and going senile, i want to think "wow! what fun i had!" versus "wow! wish i worked less!"

and let me clarify, work is important especially if you want finer things in life. and money is needed to have fun and experiences. however it should not be the source of your identity. and maybe instead of being a marxist statement, this could be what kafka was trying to explain. you should enjoy life because once its gone, you are going to regret that you spent your best years working.

i only read "metamorphosis", i tried to read some of the other works in here but they seemed like a snoozefest so i didn't.