Today hasn't been the most marvelously productive time ever. I set aside time for myself to write, and sat in front of the computer for half an hour unable to get into the right headspace for it--I couldn't concentrate in the slightest. I blame Dracula, which I've never read before this week. While I have an excuse for that--in high school AP Lit we were given the choice to read either Dracula or Frankenstein, and I chose the latter, which I love--I'm terribly sorry that I didn't read it earlier, given how much I'm liking it. I've always hated vampires, mostly because of Anne Rice and the whole progression of awful copycats, hanger-ons, and LARPers who followed her, but Dracula itself still seems fresh. It lacks the tortured and frankly whiny 'pity me for I am woez immortal and painfully sensual' attitude that characterizes so much of the fiction that followed it.
Since I've been so interested, I looked up CrimeLibrary's article on Vlad the Impaler, the historical basis for the Dracula character. The author of the article has this interesting opinion of the book: "The atmosphere it creates is, in this writer's opinion, spookier than any Stephen King novel." I'm inclined to agree. Dracula is more evocative than calculatedly scary, and it allows more room for imagination on the part of the reader. This isn't much of a surprise, since the requirements of the reading audience have necessarily changed on the whole since 1897, when Dracula was first published. In his own On Writing, King admits his debt to Stoker, with the obvious conclusion that "without Dracula....I think there is no 'Salem's Lot." Certainly It might have been markedly different as well, with its central idea of a group of chosen people bound by a higher purpose to destroy a great evil.
As for me, I especially love Mina Harker. I'm seriously considering bringing her into
the_blank_slate sometime soon, following my application for Sherlock Holmes in March. I have a hundred or so pages left, and since I can't bear to put the book down long enough to write my OWN book, I'll surely finish in the next day or two. =P
[Edit: To correct the exact wording of King's statement, once I had the book in front of me.]
Since I've been so interested, I looked up CrimeLibrary's article on Vlad the Impaler, the historical basis for the Dracula character. The author of the article has this interesting opinion of the book: "The atmosphere it creates is, in this writer's opinion, spookier than any Stephen King novel." I'm inclined to agree. Dracula is more evocative than calculatedly scary, and it allows more room for imagination on the part of the reader. This isn't much of a surprise, since the requirements of the reading audience have necessarily changed on the whole since 1897, when Dracula was first published. In his own On Writing, King admits his debt to Stoker, with the obvious conclusion that "without Dracula....I think there is no 'Salem's Lot." Certainly It might have been markedly different as well, with its central idea of a group of chosen people bound by a higher purpose to destroy a great evil.
As for me, I especially love Mina Harker. I'm seriously considering bringing her into
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
[Edit: To correct the exact wording of King's statement, once I had the book in front of me.]