ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ต.ค. 2019
- David Davis, Professor of English, discusses "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. Part of Great Books Mini-Lecture Series, which is designed to introduce you to watershed texts that have changed their readers’ views of the world.
For more information on this and other happenings at the college, visit www.jccc.edu.
In my opinion, one of the greatest mysteries of 200+ film versions is that none are faithful to the novel from start to finish. Stoker's Dracula is a megalomaniacal, cunning, vicious, physically hideous, remorseless and utterly evil monster. He loves being a vampire! He sees humans as mere prey and a blood source. No, he is not a romantic hero. No, he has no redeeming qualities and he deserves no sympathy. Stoker tells us of Dracula's warrior past but nothing about his family history. Mina Harker is a strong liberated woman who is utterly devoted to her fiance/husband Jonathan. She's not Dracula's lover. Stoker writes a fantastic scene where Mina recounts to Jonathan, Van Helsing, etc. of her terrifying traumatic attack by Dracula - the only one she remembers. She is repulsed by Dracula in every way and he threatens to dash Jonathan's brains out if she doesn't submit to him. He calls Mina his "bountiful wine press". He forces her to drink his blood and she is disgusted and guilt-riddden by it.
Stoker's narrative is brilliant as are his characters. I'm still waiting for a faithful, canonical film version of Dracula. Will any filmmaker have the integrity to get past the Dracula culture and stick strictly to the novel?
I started watching the Coppola movie that people told me was good, but I think it’s as 1990s campy as a bad Adam Sandler movie.
AMEN!
I agree completely with Melissa.
AMEN! Exactly right!
I agree. I can’t believe they had the nerve to title it ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’.
Really good lecture. Something I'd like to see covered is the actual reason Dracula is a Count, more than just inspiration of British aristocrats who Stoker knew. I read about the history of Szekely Hungarians, of which Dracula claims ancestry, and they inhabited Transylvania long before it became a Romanian territory. They guarded the Eastern border of Hungary and actually had their own aristocratic leadership, the Counts. Reading the history of the Count of the Szekelys is really interesting stuff, and made me realize that Stoker may very well have researched Eastern European history a lot more than we give him credit for.
Very interesting lecture. I wish it could’ve been longer. I’d read that the Whitechapel murders in 1888 had a profound effect(as with the rest of Victorian Society) on Stoker also.
Thank you for the lecture, it was very intriguing. I just finished reading the book and wanted to find some in-depth analysis on it, and this lecture provided that.
It did? News to me.
I chose Dracula for my new women’s book club. We are reading classics. I like this speaker. He seems like a great professor and lecturer.
This was such an interesting dive into the making of the novel. Thank you for posting this.
Very interesting. I live in Dublin and know well the house where Bram Stoker was born. The picture shown of Stoker's wife is not his wife. It's actually a photo of Constance Lloyd, Oscar Wilde's wife.
i got Bram Stoker book of Dracula that im reading i had to get it in used book store also seen the movies or so of Dracula all that
Great lecture, i learnt a lot of new information, and it was very captivating. However, with the question at the end about vampire's shape chagiing abilities in literature, this was not unique to Dracula before the novel, as Carmilla can change into to some sort of feline creature.
With all due respect to the Professor, Dracula is not killed just by Quincey Morris's Bowie knife, and you can't just give Jonathan Harker 'his due' for landing the second blow. It happens simultaneously. Quincy delivers his blow Jonathan Harker slices through Dracula's neck with a kukri knife. So Dracula is basically killed the way Van Helsing stated: pierce the heart and cut off the head. The fact Dracula turns to dust is not lost on the reader to the extent Dracula may have turned to dust because the sun rises at the same time, which is where interpretations believe the sun can kill a vampire. Also when Dracula turns to dust/mist immediately after the killing blows he may have done this to shape-shift in order to avoid 'death' from his enemies. Also possibly supported by the fact Dracula's face shows a calmness right before he dies/disappears.
Other than that, a very nice lecture, thank you for publishing this.
I want to attend one of this guys lectures
Awesome! Thank you
A very fascinating talk, but he is wrong about the absence of bats in the novel. In at least one scene, a giant bat is seen flying away from Lucy's room and towards Carfax Abbey.
nosferatu sounds like necuratu/ul in romanian which means 'unclean' and is a word used for the devil :D
when i first heard about vampires Dracula was the first name that i heard and it was not untili was in my teens that i found out about the real dracula before that i did not know there was a real dracula, this was a great presentation thank you sir
Very good lecture. But I was really interested in knowing about the following: what about the eternal life of dracul as a curse from which he could only die/rest when he found his true love !!?? Can anyone help on this one or/and indicate a link which talks about this theme...as well as the curse of Dorian Gray's curse of living forever from 24 years old ?! Thank's a lot !
It is strongly suspected the Bram Stoker was homosexual, illegal at the time of course. So I think there were a lot of repressed desires, in his writing.
Francis Coppola made that up for his 90's film adaptation.
Professor David looks a very Dark Academic style English Literature professional.
It is surprising that also in this lecture it is completely forgotten to mention the involvement of Stoker in secret society dealing with occult. Stoker was memberof Golden Dawn in years in which people alike Aleister Crowley was also attending. Nothing to say about that? The other element I would like to get investigated is the fact that in Dracula the prey vampires likes most are children, an aspect that it is normally forgotten. I would like to know if it is a brand new theme introduced with Dracula or it was already used in previous works
A lot of writers, artists, and actors were in the Golden Dawn. William Butler Yeats, Arthur Machen, Florence Farr, Evelyn Underhill. Crowley left, and formed his own order.
Bats and bat shifting feature prominently in the novel.
Christopher Lee looks a lot like Henry Irving in my opinion.
Yes it's true
But he didn't discuss the actual novel just the vampire myth? I actually enjoyed the epistolary nature of the novel and the travelogue. Then the passages of the carriage drive through the Borgos Pass is just some of the best horror/thriller writing. Being European, no we don't see the further reaches of Europe as some kind of wild west frontier. I'd say what we have in common, is that we are all these, ex feudal countries, with very old histories. Experiencing both being invaded and conquering. Variously part of different Kingdoms, and Empires at different times. The class conflict is more of a theme to me in the novel, than anything political.
I thought draculea meant "son of dracul", not dracula? The name Dracula is then compounded of draculea and dracul. Odd if an English professor would make that mistake. Yes, extra letters matter. Still a good lecture since he knows that Vlad Tepes isn't Dracula.
🎉❤
epic...
With all due respect, Prof. Davis should have cited more research when discussing Stoker's literary antecedents. I'll grant him some slack inasmuch as he was forced to lecture under limited time constraints. Nevertheless, by restricting himself to just four works, he neglected several stories that have comparable significance as precursors to "Dracula."
The first (at least as important as "Thalaba") was Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Christabel," a long narrative vampire poem which, though incomplete, stands substantially on its own, and is second only to “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” as Coleridge’s greatest poem on the supernatural. More importantly, its theme of lesbian vampirism almost certainly inspired Sheridan LeFanu’s novelette, “Carmilla.”
Also worth mentioning in passing is Ossenfelder’s poem, “The Vampire” (1748) and Goethe’s “Bride of Corinth” (1797).
Among prose antecedents, there’s the German vampire story, “Wake Not the Dead, by Johann Ludwig Tieck (published ca 1800, almost a century before” Dracula”). I first encountered this work in 1967 when I was still in my teens, after editor Charles M. Collins included it in his vampire anthology, “A Feast of Blood.” To my knowledge, this was the first anthology focused solely on the vampire theme, and the introduction was, in its own humble way, groundbreaking. The full text of Tieck’s story is at gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0606821h.html
For a spoken word reading of the story (running slightly over an hour), see: th-cam.com/video/xaSPNeVNAmY/w-d-xo.html
Even more important as a precursor to “Dracula” was an anonymous novelette, “The Mysterious Stranger,” first published in 1853 (or 1854 - accounts vary). This tale also appeared in the Collins anthology, probably its first reprinting in the 20th Century. Stoker may have borrowed several attributes of the vampire in this story --- the fact that it possessed superhuman strength, that it left an indelible bloody mark on its victim’s throats, that its attacks caused victims to waste away gradually and suffer mysterious and frightening dreams, etc. For a good synopsis of the story, see taliesinttlg.blogspot.com/2015/03/interesting-shorts-mysterious-stranger.html
The complete text is available at souo.fandom.com/wiki/Full_Text:_Mysterious_Stranger
Still another predecessor worth considering, though I doubt Stoker had ever read it (neither have I, for that matter) --- is the novel, “Le Capitaine Vampire” (English title: “Captain Vampire”) by Belgian author, Marie Nizet. Published in 1878, it’s primarily a war novel, though from what accounts I’ve read, its supernatural elements are also significant. The book can be purchased in English translation from at least four sources: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Ebay, and Better World Books. This information (except for the merchants cited) comes from the following link: www.vampires.com/did-anonymously-written-story-inspire-bram-stokers-dracula/
Of course, given the popularity of Stoker’s novel, and vampire fiction more generally, there are probably other tales that may have influenced Dracula yet to be uncovered (or should I say, “disinterred”?). But the works I’ve cited should have been mentioned by Professor Davis and given proper deference.
You have some great narratives listed. In all fairness, however, the point of the presentation was predecessors in English literature. Four of your six examples are German and one is Belgian. Christabel is often cited as an influence on later vampire literature, especially Carmilla, but the word vampire is never used in the poem. Geralidine does have vampiric characteristics, but is not explicitly described as a vampire. Still, "The Mysterious Stranger" was available in translation and Stoker might have read it. Though I have found no mention of it in his recorded journals, a more thorough look into literary precedents (one far greater than 40 minutes) would no doubt include it.
Very informative! Never heard of any of these.
Geez, he was lecturing to junior college kids.
Thanks. I was so confused when he said only 4. Stoker would surely have had access to English translations of many of those other works you mention. "Denn die Todten reiten schnell" from Lenore (1773) is in the Dracula novel. Yes, he did say "English origin". But there are many non-English texts that influenced Dracula. Leaving out those sources over-simplifies things a little too much.
In Stoker's Dracula, transcendental beauty is associated by the author with evil and control by the female vampires just as Dracula (male) uses violence. However, this is not a social commentary upon women but a literary technique. Similarly, that Dracula is evil and has halitosis does not imply that all individuals with halitosis are evil. Also, sophists who believe that this story is about homosexuality have way too much time on their hands. Similarly, the author makes it clear that there is nothing romantic about Dracula. A final point: the book started out explosively but then the action shifted to the protagonists and the author lost all the momentum he had built up. It would have been a great read if 200 pages had been edited out.
What, railway timetables are somehow less interesting that attempted murder/seduction by what appear to be three beautiful women?
That is a portrait made according to the canons of a provincial Renaissance, in reality no one can tell what it actually looked like.
Vlad II Dracul, the father of Vlad III Dracula (Țepeș) was the founder of the Drăculeşti dynasty, which lasted until the 17th century.
The surname "Țepeș" is actually a nickname (given by the Turks) given to Vlad III Dracul(a) as a result of the method of stabbing used by him.
This nickname “Țepeș”, it is associated with Vlad after his death, has remained in use to this day. It is the most famous portrait of Vlad the Impaler, preserved for over 400 years at the Ambras Palace in Austria. Vlad Dracula was portrayed as a bloodthirsty tyrant who inspired horror around him. Many of these legends were transmitted orally, and began to be collected and documented by historians and ethnographers in the 19th century.
Well the blood drinking/cruel tyrant stories, were propaganda by his various enemies, who were furious how he stood up to invasion, and strengthened Wallachia's borders. Vlad III, was simply just a great military leader/warlord of the times, defending Wallachia, from invasion on 3 fronts, the Ottomans, Hungarians, and Saxons. He is seen as a national hero by the Romanians. He had to be ruthless and uncompromising to defend his country. He was normal for a Medieval ruler of the times.
Vampires cannot enter a home unless invited by someone who lives there. Was that charactization an invention by Stoker?
Joss Whedon invented it. ;)
It's been said to've been taken from Irish legendary about the Devil.
Imagine the stds Florence Balcombe would have caught if she married Oscar Wilde instead of Stoker
Dracula is about hypnotism, addiction to opium, a societal fear of cultural change/the east and being worried about other people stealing your wife because of your inferiority complex. All these things were prevalent in Stoker's life in London when he wrote the book. Irving may have actually been banging Stoker's wife according to speculation from experts on the subject and Stoker may well have suspected as much but been too much of a powerless cuckold to do anything about it apart from write the book, of course. The other components (like most smash hits in literature, music etc) are pilfered from other influences, mixed with personal experiences and put together in a compelling and contemporary way. Not as easy as it sounds, though. Stoker created a historically great work without being a particularly great writer. Apart from some parts towards the end that drag a bit (Van Helsing talking pointless crap for page after page when we need to get back to the action) it is a fairly well written book featuring powerful imagery and classic moments and that was enough for it to resonate. A modern example of this method of different influences coming together to create a character that really captures the public's imagination would be Thomas Harris' 'Hannibal Lecter'. Harris took Dracula, Houdini, Sherlock Holmes (all giant successes) and two or three serial killers he learned about during his research at the FBI, smashed them all together and created the most famous modern literary monster in popular culture.. But, who would win in a fight, though? Dracula or Lecter? There's only one way to find out...
Not sure if I can trust someone who is using the etymology angle that says polygot instead of polyglot, that’s not a strong grasp on language son
Dracula Untold. Best Dracula film by far. IMO.
Surely I can't be the only modern reader to think it's a really terrible book. The epistolary format just leads to the narrative rambling.
Stoker just isn't a good enough writer to convincingly pull off the range of voices and styles that his chosen form demands; his portrayals of women and working class characters' voices are especially lame (not to mention the sheer implausibility of somebody being held prisoner, or steering a ship single handed, or being moments from their death etc bothering to contemporaneously write it all down as they're fighting for survival).
Dracula has survived as a text in print entirely because the character became part of popular culture - the origin text has been well served by the 120 odd years of secondary artists adding their interpretations of the character and refining the core story (in most cases offering far, far better crafted pieces than the original).
Academic studies of the book offer all kinds of thoughts about the novel's sexism, racism and psycho-analytical implications but (once again) commenting out these implicit cultural aspects is something that's bolted on to the text itself, which in itself doesn't offer any insights about anything.
Well we're used to Nightmare on Elm Street now... it's all instant gratification isn't it ? - No one wants to be bothered to read and use their imagination.
It is terrible. People are just scared to say so it cause it's considered great. To me it always seemed like this amazing short story that for some reason got stretched into a way too long and boring full length novel. The first act in the castle is truly great and the rest is absolute trash.
You could say similar things about Star Wars as a piece of filmmaking.. without the pioneering special effects and John Williams score it would just be cheap nonsense based on the basic fairy tale 'hero's journey' idea. Crap script, crap direction, passable editing, simplistic characters etc. However, when something resonates so strongly, has a certain magic and becomes so ingrained in popular culture it kind of transcends its actual quality and becomes classic regardless of its obvious flaws. It gets 'a pass' because of the legacy and importance. Stoker's book has its flaws but he gives us loads of classic moments and imagery that it's easy to take for granted when you've listened to Van Helsing talking crap for 4 pages when you really should be getting back to the action. I'm not sure the text itself was supposed to offer any insights other than into the minds of the diarists and how they interpret their own place in the story.
The thing is he's actually a really great writer, it's just that everybody judges Stoker by Dracula. Now I love this novel, Dracula is one of my all time favourite books. However, Stoker's Jewel of the Seven Stars is far superior story telling.
Wrong on many small details. The death of Drac not being the least. Lucy did NOT find Quincy *hot*. Disappointing but maybe it just doesn't translate into American very well.
70pgs of it are great and then there's those other 330 pgs...🤮