Draula: Not What I Expected

I finally decided to read Dracula, although I had downloaded it on to my Kindle more than a year ago. I'm not sure what I was expecting, maybe something like the movies I had seen, or possibly a crazy look into the vampire that seems to be the basis for all other vampiric works in modern history.

The first thing that was different than I expected, is that the book is written entirely in diary entries of the main characters, and other written works. For the first part, the diary of Jonathan Harker, it's a lovely diary, but I do have to admit, when I was at the halfway point of the book, many of the other characters annoyed the hell out of me.

As a cynical, hard New Yorker, I found it hard to believe that many of the characters could be that sweet, or wordy. I wanted to slap the female protagonists when they spoke at how "undeserving" women are of the love of men, or how they were incredibly "obedient" to their menfolk. As I continued to read, and did a bit of research into British people, I realized that the character's were intentionally written as sweet, and that British people really are that wordy and formal, And then I realized that the characters were being genuine, and all the niceness was intentional.

It seemed like religion, specifically Christianity, plays a huge part in this book. Faith is the driving point for most of the characters when they're at their lowest. I wonder how this book would have been were it written by a person of another faith, or an atheist.

I think the biggest misconception that people have when coming across this book is that they expect vampires to be handsome. Dracula is not traditionally handsome, in fact, he's only described as cruel and sensual, with, isn't necessarily a compliment considering how Stoker feels about sensuality. Vampires, vampire women, are seen as incredibly sensual, oozing it to the point where one of the main characters knew it was no longer the love of his life, just a hot demon in her place. Also, vampires aren't sexier after drinking. Jonathan Harker describes Dracula:

"Even the deep burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh, for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood. He lay like a filthy leech, exhausted with his repletion."

That certainly stands in stark contrast to hotties like Lestat and Louis in Anne Rice novels, and as the antithesis of Stephanie Meyer's sparkling marble people. I don't know how many people understand, there isn't supposed to be anything sexy and beautiful about vampires, according to this book. They're disgusting, unholy creatures from the deepest pits of Hell. For your loved one to become a vampire is a curse of the highest order; they may never dwell with God, and will forever walk in darkness.

Another thing, people seem to think that Dracula is seen as the original vampire of all vampires. The book does not support that claim. They call him "the king of vampires", but I think that's more because of his royal standing, and his position in Europe. Dr. Van Helsing (whose an old man, not Hugh Jackman) mentions that there are types of vampires in the lore of all people, not just in Europe, although this book is Eurocentric. Dracula is not given credit as the originator of all vampires, something that people give him too much credit for.

Every cinematic interpretation of the book has taken liberties with it, making Dracula into something more desirable, and building upon him a legend more fantastic than the count gives himself. It is interesting that Dracula's three females speak of him not having loved, but there is a sadness in the Count when he speaks of love, something one of the movie versions, the one with Keanu Reeves is in, where Mina is seen as a reincarnation of his beloved one. That's totally not true, the Count only wished to take from him everything that they had.

All in all, this book is a bit of a hard read. If you're anything like me, you'll want to quit when you're halfway through, when things are just building, but I assure you, if you trek to the end, it's worth it. It's a good book, but I don't think I'll read it again any time soon.

Also, I have a book list that I'm working on. Not something particularly long, but some things that have been recommended to me that I'm going to work through this month. Up next, is "Behold a Pale Horse", which I'm starting right now. I've read interesting things about it, and I'm not sure what I'm getting myself into.

Heart of Darkness

I've had this book on my Kindle for one year, without actually reading it.

I know, shame on me, because this book is amazing.

It's by Joseph Conrad. I did a quick search about him (the only reason I knew he was important was because there was a Jeopardy question about him and the book), and I've found that he is considered one of the greatest authors in English (although he himself was Polish). When I typed his name in to the search engine, Google immediately associated him with Heart of Darkness which means one of two things: either it is indeed his most famous book, or many a student has tried to skip over reading it and find Crib notes.

Now, on to the story.

Marlow, the narrator, is telling the story whilst aboard a vessel. The entire story (save some brief interruptions and comments by the listeners) is told by him. It's a very interesting way to tell this story, especially considering how the novel progresses.

It takes place as the story teller is making his way into "the darkest heart" of Africa on an expedition. There is a particular man in the heart of the forest, who brings in more ivory than all the other individual camp leaders combined. This man, Kurtz, becomes one of the sad focuses of the story.

I'm not going to give away what happens, but I will say that the title of the book is very important for a number of different reason. Actually, out of all the books that I've read, this one by far makes the most references back to the title. When I first read the title, and the synopsis when I downloaded it, I assumed that the story was so named because the character was voyaging into the darkest heart of the Dark Continent. But as Conrad weaved the tale, especially during the climax of the story, you know that the continent isn't nearly as dark as the hearts of those "exploring" it.

I will say that Conrad uses the word "nigger" a couple of times, but it honestly wasn't much that I would take offense to. I did give the side eye a few times when reading some of his descriptions of the few black people that were described. It seemed as if they were just there for their physical, and that there wasn't much going on in the Black people's noodles. Now, he is in no way HP Lovecraft status.

As for reading the book... I'd suggest having a dictionary (specifically one that you know will have archaic/poetic terms) nearby, or having a proper digital download of it. It uses language that can be tricky if you're not familiar with older English writing. Conrad also uses very, very long sentences, so I had to read some of them more than once, just to get the flow and cadence right. This is definitely a book that I will have to read again. I won't say that I have to study it the way I want to study Venus in Furs, but in order to get everything out of it that I can, I will have to revisit it a few times. It is the kind of book that at times, you start to read aloud, to test the power of the words in your own mouth. I will admit, I tried to read the first page of the story a few times, and I thought it was going to be boring, but I implore any reader, read the first five pages of a book before deciding whether or not it is something that you want to read. Sometimes the first page is a little slow because the setting is being established, as are the players.

Since reading this, I'm definitely going to look into more of Joseph Conrad's work, especially one story I've found called The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'. The synopsis looks really nice, and I know that Conrad really has a way with words.

I can't say that from reading this book, I've gotten some direct inspiration going down my fingers for me to begin to write so magnificently. I think it's far more subtle than that. I'm not even going to try and begin to write in such a manner, and I know that it's going to take me years to even begin to get as deep as Conrad did.

Trying to Read "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"

This is the most mis-titled book I have ever come across.

Unlike Frankenstein, which is free for my Kindle, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a book you have to pay for. Granted, it's just under one dollar, but when money is tight, you do your best to save every penny. That's why I downloaded the PDF version of the book. I should probably make an entire blog entry about the Pros and Cons of having PDF files. This is, for sure, not this entry, this is specifically about the book.

I'll start by saying I'm a reader that's somewhat familiar with older English phrasing, reading it, and enjoying it. This book is not only in older English, it also has many Latin phrases, and historical references. This is not a book about Quasimodo. This is not a book about his life, his times or anything like that. This book is quite literally about the the world of Paris surrounding Notre Dame Cathedral. The French name for this book literally translates to "Our Lady of Notre Dame". I don't know who in their right mind decided that a good English translation of the title would center around one of the characters.

Quasimodo doesn't even show up in the book until 50 pages in. This book spends most of its time telling the reader about the world around Notre Dame, the streets, the buildings, the neighborhoods. It does mention some pivotal characters, but the characters lives haven't been as elaborated on as the steeples and bells.

I'm 200 pages in the book, and I've realized that I have to stop being a cheepie peepee and fork over the buck to buy the Kindle version. When reading this book, I feel like I need two things: a map of Paris, and a direct internet connection to look up the many phrases and historical people that are mentioned. Without them, I'm really not going to get all out of it that I want. I refuse to give up on this book; I love Gothic literature, but I never thought it would be this tough.But, for all the tough parts, there is a beauty in the world that Victor Hugo is painting, and a music to the sentences that just isn't found anymore.

I think, after reading it, I'll write a formal review, instead of just a review of how difficult it is. But I know that it's worth the work.