New Year's Resolutions
In honor of the new year, I've decided to read one book a month. I used to read all the time, but now in college and with all the reading I have to do for homework, I've lost the ability to see reading as enjoyable. Well, I'd like to change that, and I'm hoping this does the trick.
The book I read this month was Dracula by Bram Stoker. I chose this particular book because it's been lying on my shelf for ages now, with a receipt stuck a quarter of the way through to mark where I left off last.
I made the mistake of watching Dracula before I finished reading, and I will NEVER EVER EVER do that again. Every time Mina or Jonathan wrote, all I could picture was Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves STUPID FACES, and it ruined it. Honestly, WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?! They were horrible in the movie (Reeves CANNOT act for the life of him and looked more constipated than concerned, and I just hate Winona Ryder--I think she's a horrid actress and reading Mina's parts in her voice was painful), and it really did affect how I viewed the characters. Huge mistake on my part, and it will not be repeated with any other books.
But for all the bad, there was good: Gary Oldham (I have such a lady-boner for him) as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing were excellent--their portrayals added to the reading--and imagining Cary Elwes as Arthur Holmwood was adorable. But that could not repair the desecration of Jonathan and Mina. I could go on for ages about how the movie affected my reading, but I won't. Different rant, different day.
Anyway, back to the book...
Stylistically, I enjoyed the whole epistolary style, with the notes, journals, letters, etc. It added a different dimension to the story, and each voice was unique and well written. It allowed for well-rounded characters that really did come alive, and each important character received screen time, except Quincey, but the almost complete omission of notes/letters/etc. from his POV was (in my opinion) foreshadowing that he would die. Speaking of which, Quincey was my favorite character, and his death made me very, very sad.
Despite Ryder as Mina, I grew to like Mina towards the end. The movie changed some stuff about her characterization that the book did better (and more realistically--Ryder!Mina was a bit whorish for the time, and while sex sells, it's not very accurate or true to the story). The chemistry between Jonathan and Mina in the book was much better, too; time appropriate, and it was so obvious they really did love each other (Reeves and Ryder's fell short on so many levels), which made Mina's struggles with vampirism that much harder for me to read. I was happy to see Mina touted as a strong woman, because she was a really good character, both in spirit and how she was written. She had her quirks (a self-described train 'fiend'), her flaws-that-aren't-really-flaws (struggling silently with her weird dreams, even though I KNEW what was happening and she should have just told somebody!), and her unwavering love of Jonathan that not only made her a good wife, but a good person. It got a bit annoying to hear everyone talk about how ~wonderful~ and ~self-sacrificing~ she was, but when push came to shove, she really was (how she told them to kill her if she was beyond redemption, among other things).
The Lucy issue was a bit tiring--she was kind of a whore, but no one would come out and say it (her whorish attributes were just chalked up to her being a flighty wimmins, which enraged my inner-feminist, but different time, different rant, different day). And of course, all three men who loved her got to "marry" her by giving her their blood, which seems a bit scandalous for the times, but I get it. Gives a bit of depth to the whole vampire bite = sex thing, and I can dig it. She needed it (in other words, it was logical to the story), and it added characterization to the men, who were all good men who cared for her deeply.
I certainly did not miss the action scene from the movie where Mina kills Dracula (the whole soul subplot was weird to me, but I think it was the acting). I liked Dracula's more tactical approach from the book--using Mina to spy on his enemies was much more in line with the cold, calculated Dracula I prefer/is more logical to the whole beast vs. humanity thing going on. And, after all, Vlad the Impaler was a psycho, not a tortured soul! If I remember correctly (and I might not) he took a second, Roman Catholic wife (he himself was Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox) to get the Pope on his side while still married to Elisabeta, who threw herself off a cliff to get away from his psycho-ness [/movie tangent].
I much prefer Stoker's vampires to the recent sparklevomit vampires of YA lit. Stoker's vampires are interesting, complicated, and dangerous, which is infinitely preferably to the sparkletwats/wubbies of today's vampires. Stoker even kept the sexy side of it, although his vampires' sex appeal seemed to stem from a more intangible source (in a more "predator-uses-sex-appeal-to-lure-and-then-eat-prey" way) than the whole 'Vampires-are-sexy-because-they're-good-looking' or even worse 'All-human-flaws-disappear-with-vampirism' crap that permeates vampire fiction today.
Overall, good book. Much better than the movie.
In any case, Dracula portrays vampires as they should be--evil, calculating and cold. True villains. Not sparkly. And it's a much better, more entertaining read.
And now, on to Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress!
The book I read this month was Dracula by Bram Stoker. I chose this particular book because it's been lying on my shelf for ages now, with a receipt stuck a quarter of the way through to mark where I left off last.
I made the mistake of watching Dracula before I finished reading, and I will NEVER EVER EVER do that again. Every time Mina or Jonathan wrote, all I could picture was Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves STUPID FACES, and it ruined it. Honestly, WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?! They were horrible in the movie (Reeves CANNOT act for the life of him and looked more constipated than concerned, and I just hate Winona Ryder--I think she's a horrid actress and reading Mina's parts in her voice was painful), and it really did affect how I viewed the characters. Huge mistake on my part, and it will not be repeated with any other books.
But for all the bad, there was good: Gary Oldham (I have such a lady-boner for him) as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing were excellent--their portrayals added to the reading--and imagining Cary Elwes as Arthur Holmwood was adorable. But that could not repair the desecration of Jonathan and Mina. I could go on for ages about how the movie affected my reading, but I won't. Different rant, different day.
Anyway, back to the book...
Stylistically, I enjoyed the whole epistolary style, with the notes, journals, letters, etc. It added a different dimension to the story, and each voice was unique and well written. It allowed for well-rounded characters that really did come alive, and each important character received screen time, except Quincey, but the almost complete omission of notes/letters/etc. from his POV was (in my opinion) foreshadowing that he would die. Speaking of which, Quincey was my favorite character, and his death made me very, very sad.
Despite Ryder as Mina, I grew to like Mina towards the end. The movie changed some stuff about her characterization that the book did better (and more realistically--Ryder!Mina was a bit whorish for the time, and while sex sells, it's not very accurate or true to the story). The chemistry between Jonathan and Mina in the book was much better, too; time appropriate, and it was so obvious they really did love each other (Reeves and Ryder's fell short on so many levels), which made Mina's struggles with vampirism that much harder for me to read. I was happy to see Mina touted as a strong woman, because she was a really good character, both in spirit and how she was written. She had her quirks (a self-described train 'fiend'), her flaws-that-aren't-really-flaws (struggling silently with her weird dreams, even though I KNEW what was happening and she should have just told somebody!), and her unwavering love of Jonathan that not only made her a good wife, but a good person. It got a bit annoying to hear everyone talk about how ~wonderful~ and ~self-sacrificing~ she was, but when push came to shove, she really was (how she told them to kill her if she was beyond redemption, among other things).
The Lucy issue was a bit tiring--she was kind of a whore, but no one would come out and say it (her whorish attributes were just chalked up to her being a flighty wimmins, which enraged my inner-feminist, but different time, different rant, different day). And of course, all three men who loved her got to "marry" her by giving her their blood, which seems a bit scandalous for the times, but I get it. Gives a bit of depth to the whole vampire bite = sex thing, and I can dig it. She needed it (in other words, it was logical to the story), and it added characterization to the men, who were all good men who cared for her deeply.
I certainly did not miss the action scene from the movie where Mina kills Dracula (the whole soul subplot was weird to me, but I think it was the acting). I liked Dracula's more tactical approach from the book--using Mina to spy on his enemies was much more in line with the cold, calculated Dracula I prefer/is more logical to the whole beast vs. humanity thing going on. And, after all, Vlad the Impaler was a psycho, not a tortured soul! If I remember correctly (and I might not) he took a second, Roman Catholic wife (he himself was Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox) to get the Pope on his side while still married to Elisabeta, who threw herself off a cliff to get away from his psycho-ness [/movie tangent].
I much prefer Stoker's vampires to the recent sparklevomit vampires of YA lit. Stoker's vampires are interesting, complicated, and dangerous, which is infinitely preferably to the sparkletwats/wubbies of today's vampires. Stoker even kept the sexy side of it, although his vampires' sex appeal seemed to stem from a more intangible source (in a more "predator-uses-sex-appeal-to-lure-and-then-eat-prey" way) than the whole 'Vampires-are-sexy-because-they're-good-looking' or even worse 'All-human-flaws-disappear-with-vampirism' crap that permeates vampire fiction today.
Overall, good book. Much better than the movie.
In any case, Dracula portrays vampires as they should be--evil, calculating and cold. True villains. Not sparkly. And it's a much better, more entertaining read.
And now, on to Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress!