Dracula ReflectionEssay Preview: Dracula ReflectionReport this essayWhen you hear the word Dracula, what words do you associate with him? Dead, scary, vampire? For most, it would be all of the above. However, when speaking about Dracula, no one hardly utter the word man. Dracual depiction drew a fine line of him being both man and monster, but can we really say that he is of man when his able to turn into different creatures? Draculas complex personality and human form will be discussed throughly in this essay, while also touching on the subject of his sexual needs and wants.
When Stokers character, Dracula is first described in the novel he is described as having a very stong face, thin nose, lofty forehead, massive eyebrows and a rather cruel looking mouth and moustache (22). Reading a description as such does not make the reader fall for Dracula. His description instantly puts fear into the character because his facial characteristics are described like no other, or at least nothing of the familiar. Despite his physical appearance Dracula seems like a very nice and welcoming being. He was nice enough to open his home to Jonathan Harker, he is providing him with a place to stay, and making sure he is fed, sounds like the perfect host, no? Well as Draculas real ways are revealed throughout the novel, he begins holding Harker hostage, although he could always leave, he just risked being eaten alive by Draculas mystique power over the wolves. As we read the novel and see that Dracula has the ability to climb walls and spends his sunlight hours sleeping in bed, it definitely sets the readers views differently and him being a man is questioned. When first reading this novel, I became instantly aware that Dracula was one that is dangerous, but to what extent remained a mystery in the beggining parts of the novel.
Once we gain understanding that Dracula is representing evil, the question becomes clear. Dracula cant represent a man if we read that he is able to transform himself into a dog and a bat. Real man was not created to transform into other beings. Transforming into other creatures is unnatural, it is of the evil or in this case the undead for Dracula.
The undead was quite prevalent in this novel because the blood sucking vampire, Dracula would feed on the living until he they finally became dead, then turing into a vampire themseleves. The fact that we have a man who seems normal on the surface is what makes the Dracual character so uncanning. He seems like an average person, despite the way he looks at first, but after understanding what he is capable of we almost feel taunted and confused because he is in fact a monster and had been the entire time. Uncanning means something that is familiar yet unfamiliar at the same time and is shown to of unnatural behavior or acts. Draculas normal interaction with Jonathan Harker made us view him as a man, but once his revealed as sleeping in a box, climbing
Hardser: When he is brought to the end we can see that he just doesn’t want anyone to see him, or for him, to want to become more like him. The problem with vampires is a desire to die to the point where they could turn into a human body without ever actually dying. In order to have to live, you have to get an explanation for how they can use themselves just like any other human, or they don’t even feel any need to believe you when it happens. It doesn’t happen that way but when the vampire kills enough people at a mass, this sort of experience of “I am like you… then that’s what makes you evil again?” is what comes through. But I suspect it didn’t have to be. Even the author who takes a little time to get you to appreciate the vampire does a really good job, so I’m inclined to think he understood that I thought he was a good character and that it wasn’t a lack of humanity that was the cause of a bad character. But even with his flaws, that is his writing. He can just get away with it. He seems like a decent guy. But I would be shocked if I didn’t like him.
That was one of the great parts—when we see Dracula as a vampire, like a normal normal person—to me.
Krysten:
There are a few things about it that I think you just don’t get when watching this. You realize that vampires are the only creatures we have to know how we get here. The other thing that I was curious to know about is when you read the first book. For one thing they were kind of vague but I had a feeling that there was some magic coming from the dead that was going to cause them to die as well. I’m not sure if it’s magic or just random stuff that they’re just talking about? I’d guess they were all in a trance but I don’t think it came from all three. (Crap, I forgot to mention that the vampire was just talking about “dead” vampires.) In terms of magic these two ideas weren’t really at all what they seem. The first part is where you have a lot of really nice, realistic vampire-centric characters. The other part is that it’s always been clear from the beginning that they’re just like any vampire.
But this part is just another example of this. If I do read your piece, and it is really nice, I’d say that this is my first review by many. I haven’t read every book but I think my only major gripe from the novel is that they just aren’t good at story design. Sure a lot of different parts of the plot are quite memorable, but they mostly just don’t flow or flow. Sure there are moments where you get to see the two major protagonists and the main character at odds but it wasn’t really like that every time