Dracula: Blood=Sex?

Xian wrote: [Dracula, blood, sex?] > You are free to remain unimpressed. Read it as a straight horror > novel, if you like. I find it hard to deny that sexual undercurrents > run through the book. I did not realize we were debating whether _Dracula_ contained "sexual undercurrents" (whatever that means). I thought we were debating whether the vampire's drinking of blood represented sex, or whether Stoker concieved his vampire as erotic and sexy. > All of the female characters >had some sort of > infatuation or liasons with the Count, By "all" you mean "both", I suppose. The count also has sex with Reinfield, with Harker, and with an entire shipload of sailors, assuming, of course, that drinking blood represents sex. I also seem to recall that Lucy has sex with an infant. These deep insights sure are enlightening. As for "infatuation", the count also used his mind-control powers on Reinfield as well. It was necessary for the author to explain the count's "appeal" in supernatural terms, because, after all, the count was not *in fact* the least appealing. He was an undead, devouring, corpse-creature (presumably incapable of sex) and any "appeal" he posessed was an illusion (surely I have already addressed this point). > in various states of undress By this I suppose you mean that they were wearing their nightclothes when the count attacked them at night. But whatever. If he did portray them in "varying states of undress" (which I do not recall) this would imply to me an erotic interest on the part of the male author in his attractive female characters (and not in the undead male corpse-creature). You need to refocus yourself on the count and argue the sexual significance of his specifically *vampiric* qualities. At present, you are casting your net awfully wide in search of material to support your argument, which is a universal practice among "neo-Freudian" literary critics. Inevitably, such attempts succeed because all humans have sex organs and sex instincts, and therefore everything human can be connected to sex by playing loose games of association. The "insights" that result are useless. Anything can be related to sex by playing loose association games, including your rolled-up dirty socks.. >or intimacy. I guess by this you mean that he got close enough to drink their blood. > Do you take all fiction at face value and not look for any hidden or > deeper meanings? LOL. You talk about "deeper meanings" in connection with the notion that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula. Yet applying this metaphor quickly turns the story into incomprehensible nonsense. A "straight" (ie. non-allegorical) reading of the story is a thousand times more "deep" than the nonsensical porno-allegory that such a theory produces. A lot of interesting (*) things might be said about the significance and real-life applicability of the vampire myth, both in folklore and as portrayed in Stoker's novel. One may note, for instance, the significance of the vampire as a personification of disease, contagion, and lingering death. Garlic, an extremely nutritious herb known to boost the immune system, is said to be proof against them. If another sort of real-life applicability is desired, one may compare the relationship between a vampire and his victim to various real-life relationships between men and women, in which one partner is so arrested and infantile in his/her emotional development, and so emotionally needy, that he/she ends up emotionally devouring, and ultimately destroying, his or her partner. In real life, such relationships are often (on the surface) romantic or sexual.(**) But it is not the SEX that is analagous to blood drain .... not at any rate if the analogy is to make sense. (*) Interesting, at least, to those who are interested in other things besides sex. (**) Similarly, in Stoker's novel, the count seems to have a preference for victims of the opposite gender, and disguises his depredations, (to an minimal extent) as romantic courtship. But to argue, therefore, that vampirism represents sexuality is to rather miss the point. This is merely a ruse and an illusion that covers a hidden horror. Any lure of sex & romance is a false promise ... something the vampire has no intention (or capability) of actually providing. It is a bait and switch. Therein lies the horror. It is important to recall that "Dracula" is definitely intended to be a *horror* story, and that its vampires were intended to be *horrible.* People who try to equate Stoker's vampires with sexuality base this on the idea that Stoker and his contemporaries were so sexually repressed that they regarded sex as horrible. But this seems to me very unlikely. While they were certainly more reserved about discussing it openly, I am reasonably sure that most Victorians thought that sex was great, much as we do now. > Did you read Frankenstein as a pure horror story? I believe my phrase (with reference to "Dracula") was "straight horror story", by which I mean to say it is not an allegory (sexual or otherwise). I did not use the phrase "pure horror story", nor do I have any idea what you intend the phrase to mean.. And no, I don't think "Frankenstein" is an allegory either, and certainly not a sexual one. (In other words, it is a "straight horror story"). It has a moral and a message, of course, and Shelly is pretty up-front about it (it is pretty much announced in the subtitle).. (BTW, in case anyone has not read it, Shelly kicks Stoker's ass in the horror department. No film version yet made has done her novel, or her monster, justice.) > The Jungle is just something about a guy in a meat factory? May well be for all I know. I never read it. Does the "meat" represent sex? > 1984...just another sordid, tawdry romance in a futuristic police >state? Getting carried away, aren't you? Why do you imagine I possess such an opinion? That is certainly not the one-line review I would give for "1984". However, it is certainly not a sexual allegory. If it were, that would probably cheapen it, and make it sordid and tawdry. <snip more straw-man literary opinions you falsely imagine I possess> >> > I did not say that the entirety of the vampire myth is about sex... >> >> No, you merely suggested that my interest and preference for non-erotic >> vampires was somehow unreasonable and contradictory. I believe my response was >> appropriate. > Actually, I didn't say that it's unreasonable. I said that current > fiction likes to portray them as erotic, Which was something I had just said when you intervened with your comment. I'm sorry. I did not realize you were merely trying to agree with me. > and I'm not making a > judgement on that one way or another. I tend to agree that the > vampire is over-hyped as an erotic symbol, and I don't believe I said > anything about you being wrong for not agreeing with the current trend > in pop culture. So you were just trying to agree with me all along. Shucks! {re: idea that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula] > Go right ahead...it was obviously dreamed up by some idiot in an ivory > tower who knows nothing about the subject. Now yer catchin on! > > Well that makes two of us. Nonetheless, I derived considerable enjoyment from > > "Dracula", even though I did not find the title character even remotely sexy. > > How about you? I read it as a straight horror story. I strongly suspect that > > this is precisely what Bram Stoker intended, whatever the "standard > > interpretation" might be. > Actually, I don't think that's what he intended. I think he intended > elements of horror in the novel in order to bypass censors, and to > keep it titillating for his Victorian readers, Hmm. This statement is a bit nebulous. By denying that he intended it as "straight horror" do you mean that he intended it as sexual allegory? Do you think he really desired to write soft-core porn, but was forced disguised it as horror? Why else would he wish to get anything past the censors? If soft-core porn or erotic drama were his real interest, then how come he knew so much about folklore? Francis Ford Coppola seems to have bought into ideas such as these. In his so-called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", he insists on taking the count seriously as a romantic and erotic hero. He makes the alleged hidden eroticism of the novel quite explicit, presumably on the assumption that this is what Stoker would have wanted had not those mean Victorian censors stopped him. The resulting film is a bit of a joke, not scary, and impossible to take seriously as horror -- arguably one of the least successful adaptations of the novel. Particularly funny is the scene where a "horrified" Harker is fed upon by Dracula's brides, there portrayed as a trio of luscious bare-breasted beauties caressing him on satin sheets. Thank God he was able to escape! > but it's also not that > much of a leap (for me, at least) to read hidden desires in the > actions of the characters. You are once again being extremely nebulous here. Which characters are you refering to? What hidden desires? Let me remind you once again that we were originally debating your explicit claim that, in Dracula, the act of drinking blood is a metaphorical representation of sex. Suggesting that certain unnamed characters may have hidden desires of a sexual nature, somewhere in the course of a full-length novel, does not sound like it has much to do with your original claim.

In message <20010818072439...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>, MSheafer33 <mshea...@cs.com> writes >LOL. You talk about "deeper meanings" in connection with the >notion that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula. Yet applying >this metaphor quickly turns the story into incomprehensible >nonsense. A "straight" (ie. non-allegorical) reading of the story >is a thousand times more "deep" than the nonsensical porno-allegory >that such a theory produces. Erm, drawing links with sex doesn't necessarily turn something into a "nonsensical porno-allegory". Just in case anyone was wondering. Literary interpretation and symbolism are a little more intricate than that. And the bisexual nature of the Count is one of the more pervasive and persuasive readings of the novel that I've come across. Far from the only reading, of course, what with subjectivism and deconstructionalism, and all, but certainly a very valid and insightful interpretation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6 Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: >Erm, drawing links with sex doesn't necessarily turn something into a >"nonsensical porno-allegory". Not necessarily, but we were discussing a particular situation. We were discussing the theory that in Dracula, drinking blood is a metaphorical representation of sex. That is closer to equating than it is to relating. Of course, virtually anything can be linked or related to sex, directly or indirectly, because sex relates to virtually everything human, including your dirty socks. I never claimed that it was nonsensical to draw links and relationships.. In my case, I do indeed believe that Stoker draws up a relationship between vampirism and sex. But that relationship is primarily one of hostility, marked contrast, and phony pretence. Illusions notwithstanding, vampires are the opposite of sex. > Just in case anyone was wondering. >Literary interpretation and symbolism are a little more intricate than >that. OK. You are more than welcome, if you can, to explain how this particular theory improves one's understanding and appreciation of the story. Or at least provide a link to a theory you agree with. >And the bisexual nature of the Count is one of the more pervasive and >persuasive readings of the novel that I've come across. This is presumably based on the fact that Dracula consumes the blood of both men and women. I guess that makes Lucy and the other female vampires pedophiles. But if you like, I can provide a far more intelligent explanation of the story significance of the female vampires' proclivities. >Far from the >only reading, of course, what with subjectivism and deconstructionalism, >and all, but certainly a very valid and insightful interpretation. Hmm. This sounds like fence sitting to me. Do you support the theory or not?

In message <20010818120049...@mb-mm.news.cs.com>, MSheafer33 <mshea...@cs.com> writes >James Coupe wrote: > >>Erm, drawing links with sex doesn't necessarily turn something into a >>"nonsensical porno-allegory". > >Not necessarily, but we were discussing a particular situation. And drawing links between vampirism, vampiric feeding and sex does not turn the book into a "nonsensical porno-allegory" either. Allegory is a useful thing to consider at all points, of course. >We were >discussing the theory that in Dracula, drinking blood is a metaphorical >representation of sex. That is closer to equating than it is to relating. Indeed, many things can be metaphoric. One of the useful things about metaphors is that they allow you to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between two items, delineating knowledge and improving insight into both items at the same time. Metaphors do not, however, immediately make one thing the other. There is only so far that a metaphor can be taken. One element of criticism and interpretation is recognising how far these metaphors can be taken, and on what levels - figurative, literal, psychological, sociological etc. >> Just in case anyone was wondering. >>Literary interpretation and symbolism are a little more intricate than >>that. > >OK. You are more than welcome, if you can, to explain how this particular >theory improves one's understanding and appreciation of the story. Why would you have literary interpretation solely address the story aspect? It can be far more enriching and rewarding than just that. Indeed, a well-written piece of literature can be, indeed some might say *should* be, about far more than simply the story. I can indeed write an essay for you on these uses of symbolism and metaphor in Dracula. However, I have problems accessing a well-stocked academic library, at present, for cross-referential and research purposes. I would suggest a web-search might prove valuable to you, presenting you with many and varied options rather than sticking solely to one. One of the key things with reading criticism is to never read only author or point of view if you can possibly help it. As another person's point of view, I'd suggest "Nosferatu" (the film) or "Shadow of the Vampire" (also a film, set during the making of Nosferatu) as particularly useful in this regard. >>And the bisexual nature of the Count is one of the more pervasive and >>persuasive readings of the novel that I've come across. > >This is presumably based on the fact that Dracula consumes the blood of both >men and women. Partly, but not just that. It's based on a lot more than that. Literary interpretation and criticism is not a game of "This means that, case solved." It may aid you in your argument to bear that in mind. Literary criticism is a somewhat more delicate tool than that. It may be possible to draw particular strands of imagery together for a "This means that" interpretation when attempting a piece of Practical Criticism or, to a lesser degree, when working with the whole piece under the New Criticism - with such influences as IA Richards, Donald Davie or FR Leavis brought to bear on the subject - but across a whole novel, things become far more subtle, delicate and intricate. I'd suggest Northrop Frye's "Anatomy of Criticism" as providing a few, very useful, ways of interacting with a piece of literature. His work has been criticised and, in some manners, surpassed by recent work (you might find "The Language of Criticism" by Dr. John Casey (yes, this is a real person, not a crypt card, I've met him) useful in this regard) but it still provides a very useful base for literary criticism to work from - a sort of "If I'm not thinking about these ideas, why?" point of reference. The Frye is useful and generally available if you have access to a well-stocked library. >>Far from the >>only reading, of course, what with subjectivism and deconstructionalism, >>and all, but certainly a very valid and insightful interpretation. > >Hmm. This sounds like fence sitting to me. Do you support the theory or not? Modern literary criticism and interpretation do not (necessarily) require you to pick only one theory and support it (though this can be useful if you're competing for funding, I guess). Unless a theory can be written which illuminates each and every part of a well-written novel (or poem, or play etc.), there's no harm in considering different theories and view-points. Indeed, it's extremely useful - especially when working with a deconstructionalist or subjective point of view. The latter, especially considering the intensely subjective nature of portions of the novel/experience, can be particularly illuminating and liberating. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

Yes. > [Dracula, blood, sex?] > > You are free to remain unimpressed. Read it as a straight horror > > novel, if you like. I find it hard to deny that sexual undercurrents > > run through the book. > > I did not realize we were debating whether _Dracula_ contained "sexual > undercurrents" (whatever that means). I thought we were debating > whether the vampire's drinking of blood represented sex, or whether > Stoker concieved his vampire as erotic and sexy. Yes, we are. In so far as the image of Vampires as given to us by Dracula is the image of vampires that pervades western literature on the subject (Anne Rice, et al.). In that book Dracula SEDUCES and drinks the blood of his victims. He doesn't have to be "sexy" in the (insert fetish here) way of thinking about sexy. But he is an erotic symbol. He becomes the remover of innocence from his victims. This removal of innocence is associated with sex and the erotic as far back as the book of Genesis, the apple, and the fall of mankind. Stoker did concieve of Dracula as an erotic charactor, read how he has the Doctor describe him and his taste in victims. > > > All of the female characters > >had some sort of > > infatuation or liasons with the Count, > > By "all" you mean "both", I suppose. > The count also has sex with Reinfield, with Harker, and > with an entire shipload of sailors, assuming, of course, that > drinking blood represents sex. I also seem to recall that > Lucy has sex with an infant. These deep insights sure are > enlightening. > > As for "infatuation", the count also used his mind-control > powers on Reinfield as well. It was necessary for the author > to explain the count's "appeal" in supernatural terms, because, > after all, the count was not *in fact* the least appealing. He > was an undead, devouring, corpse-creature (presumably > incapable of sex) and any "appeal" he posessed was an > illusion (surely I have already addressed this point). You forget the three vampresses that he keeps in his castle (he made them). But as James points out there is a vein of lit crit that considers Dracula to be bi. Further, he only converts to vamparism (takes as his Bride) female charactors. Drinking blood is a metaphor for sex, converting to vamparism is flat out stated as being like marriage. > > > in various states of undress > > By this I suppose you mean that they were wearing their > nightclothes when the count attacked them at night. > But whatever. If he did portray them in "varying states > of undress" (which I do not recall) this would imply to me > an erotic interest on the part of the male author in his attractive > female characters (and not in the undead male corpse-creature). Ok, so the book is erotic only when the females are mentioned, but as I stated above, the Seduction of these charactors is what makes the scene erotic, and for the seduction you need Dracula. Remember Dracula is the beast that is in all men that makes us crave women, only the proper training (in Victorian prep schools) can keep this beast down in the men of jolly old england. > > You need to refocus yourself on the count and argue the sexual > significance of his specifically *vampiric* qualities. read the above paragraph, he is the beast that is in all men. <snip your attemt to say lit crit is usless> > > Do you take all fiction at face value and not look for any hidden or > > deeper meanings? > > LOL. You talk about "deeper meanings" in connection with the > notion that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula. Yet applying > this metaphor quickly turns the story into incomprehensible > nonsense. A "straight" (ie. non-allegorical) reading of the story > is a thousand times more "deep" than the nonsensical porno-allegory > that such a theory produces. It's only nonsense if you don't understand the culture and the time in which the book is being written. If you want to just read it as horror, go ahead, but you lose some of the beauty of the book. For instance there are at least five ways to read Dante's Inferno, each as a different book. Sure it's fun as a tour guide to hell, but you miss something by not being open to the other interpretations. > (*) Interesting, at least, to those who are interested in other things > besides sex. And who are those people? <grin> > > Did you read Frankenstein as a pure horror story? > > And no, I don't think "Frankenstein" is an allegory either, and > certainly not a sexual one. (In other words, it is a "straight horror > story"). It has a moral and a message, of course, and Shelly is > pretty up-front about it (it is pretty much announced in the subtitle).. Then you are on crack. I suppose you think that the monster in that story is the reanimated corpse too. Whats the moral, don't try to reanimate corpses? It's like Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) I like morals that can't be applied to other things (Snow Goons are no good.) > > (BTW, in case anyone has not read it, Shelly kicks Stoker's ass in > the horror department. No film version yet made has done her novel, > or her monster, justice.) I don't know Young Frankenstein came close. <grin> > > Actually, I don't think that's what he intended. I think he intended > > elements of horror in the novel in order to bypass censors, and to > > keep it titillating for his Victorian readers, > > Hmm. This statement is a bit nebulous. By denying that he intended it > as "straight horror" do you mean that he intended it as sexual allegory? > Do you think he really desired to write soft-core porn, but was forced > disguised it as horror? Why else would he wish to get anything past > the censors? If soft-core porn or erotic drama were his real interest, then > how come he knew so much about folklore? > > Francis Ford Coppola seems to have bought into ideas such as these. > In his so-called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", he insists on taking the count > seriously as a romantic and erotic hero. He makes the alleged > hidden eroticism of the novel quite explicit, presumably on the assumption > that this is what Stoker would have wanted had not those mean > Victorian censors stopped him. The resulting film is a bit of a joke, > not scary, and impossible to take seriously as horror -- arguably one of > the least successful adaptations of the novel. Particularly > funny is the scene where a "horrified" Harker is fed upon by Dracula's > brides, there portrayed as a trio of luscious bare-breasted beauties > caressing him on satin sheets. Thank God he was able to escape! That was accurate to their description in the book. Only through high morals and pure love for his girl was he able to escape the clutches of the ravenous beasts. Thank God indeed. As for the censors, yes he did need to get a bit around them. That didn't stop him from writing a good story though. In a deeper way though, the actual myths of Dracula place him in a similiar position of erotic monster. The movie was infact so "unsucessful" because it remained true to the plot of the book. If you didn't see it as horror, then you've become to jaded to what Victorian horror is. As a test, do you think that The Raven by Poe is scary? Enough for now, maybe Xian will post to this to, I feel like I missed something. Cameron

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20010818072439...@mb-ma.news.cs.com... > I did not realize we were debating whether _Dracula_ contained "sexual > undercurrents" (whatever that means). I thought we were debating > whether the vampire's drinking of blood represented sex, or whether > Stoker concieved his vampire as erotic and sexy. I'll try to use smaller words in the future. Yes, we were debating whether or not the vampire's drinking of blood represents sex, which would inherently mean that _Dracula_ contains sexual themes or undercurrents (from m-w.com -- undercurrent...2: a hidden opinion, feeling, or tendency often contrary to the one publicly shown). I'm not really arguing the point about Stoker conceiving the vampire as erotic/sexy, as he refers to the vampire as a beast, as lustful, all of that good stuff. [female characters, liasons with the Count] > By "all" you mean "both", I suppose. Well, it's been a while since I read the book, but one could assume that his "wives" also had liasons. But I was primarily referring to the Mina and Lucy, yes. A poor grammar nitpick, at best..."all" denotes the entirety of a set, and a set of two is still a set. > The count also has sex with Reinfield, with Harker, and Yup. > with an entire shipload of sailors, assuming, of course, that > drinking blood represents sex. I also seem to recall that Sure, if you like. > Lucy has sex with an infant. These deep insights sure are > enlightening. She also desires blood from her human suitors, IIRC. At minimum, they "donate blood" to her, inan attempt to bring that healthy look back to her pale features. This certainly has a lot of possibilities, as far as the sex metaphor goes. > As for "infatuation", the count also used his mind-control > powers on Reinfield as well. It was necessary for the author Well, I didn't really mention his seeming ability to sway people's minds, but yeah, he put the whammy on Renfield as well. What's your point? Maybe Renfield was attracted to him too. > to explain the count's "appeal" in supernatural terms, because, > after all, the count was not *in fact* the least appealing. He > was an undead, devouring, corpse-creature (presumably > incapable of sex) and any "appeal" he posessed was an > illusion (surely I have already addressed this point). Attraction isn't always based on a purely physical basis. He could have been seen to possess a certain animal magnetism, the obvious desires and emotions that he displayed making him very different (and therefore appealing) from the straight-laced Victorian men that are presented as models of civilization and gentlemen. > By this I suppose you mean that they were wearing their > nightclothes when the count attacked them at night. True. On at least one point, Lucy is wandering outside of the house with just her nightclothes on, which is noted as unusual, because she doesn't have a housecoat covering her, IIRC. Sure, people went out at night, but they took the appropriate clothing with them to wear over their underwear. Not when dealing with the Count, though. > But whatever. If he did portray them in "varying states > of undress" (which I do not recall) this would imply to me > an erotic interest on the part of the male author in his attractive > female characters (and not in the undead male corpse-creature). I would suspect instead that it was added to intrigue erotic interest on the part of the readers, and not simply because the author was interested in the characters. > You need to refocus yourself on the count and argue the sexual > significance of his specifically *vampiric* qualities. At present, Why? He posed as a human, and seemed to be attractive to a number of the characters. > you are casting your net awfully wide in search of material > to support your argument, which is a universal practice among > "neo-Freudian" literary critics. Inevitably, such attempts succeed I could come up with a number of other readings of the book, including a deconstructivist reading, and a more truly psychologcial (not Freud-based) reading, but that would require a fair amount more effort than I feel willing to put into an argument on the net with someone who is apparently uninterested in symbolism in literature. > because all humans have sex organs and sex instincts, and therefore > everything human can be connected to sex by playing loose > games of association. The "insights" that result are useless. Call it loose games of association if you wish, but I haven't had to dig very far to find supporting evidence..."Said he not that the transfusion of his blood to her veins had made her truly his bride?" (p.182, shortly after Lucy's death) There's lots more where that came from. > > Do you take all fiction at face value and not look for any hidden or > > deeper meanings? > > LOL. You talk about "deeper meanings" in connection with the > notion that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula. Yet applying Yeah, I do. > this metaphor quickly turns the story into incomprehensible > nonsense. A "straight" (ie. non-allegorical) reading of the story There is the possibility for allegory within almost any story...why immediately disregard it without exploring it? > is a thousand times more "deep" than the nonsensical porno-allegory > that such a theory produces. The metaphor hardly turns it into nonsense. If there were suitable motivation to do so (a class, money, whatever), I might develop it into something more than the high-level brief description I provided, but nothing like that seems likely. > A lot of interesting (*) things might be said about the significance > and real-life applicability of the vampire myth, both in folklore > and as portrayed in Stoker's novel. One may note, for instance, > the significance of the vampire as a personification of disease, > contagion, and lingering death. Garlic, an extremely nutritious herb > known to boost the immune system, is said to be proof against them. Ah, but that's not a non-allegorical reading of it. You're turning the vampire into a symbol of disease, which quickly turns this into something other than a "straight" reading of the book. > If another sort of real-life applicability is desired, one may compare > the relationship between a vampire and his victim to various real-life > relationships between men and women, in which one partner is so > arrested and infantile in his/her emotional development, and so > emotionally needy, that he/she ends up emotionally devouring, > and ultimately destroying, his or her partner. In real life, such > relationships are often (on the surface) romantic or sexual.(**) More allegory...you're turning this into a psycho-social reading of the book. Which certainly isn't a bad thing, but it's definitely not a "straight" reading. > (**) Similarly, in Stoker's novel, the count seems to have a preference > for victims of the opposite gender, and disguises his depredations, > (to an minimal extent) as romantic courtship. But to argue, therefore, that Preference? You mean that he only takes blood from males when necessary? Seems to be true, but he definitely wasn't above taking blood from men, or act as if this was distasteful in any manner. > vampirism represents sexuality is to rather miss the point. This is That is not the basis for arguing that vamipirism is symbolic of sexuality. It would more be found in the language used to describe the vampirism, and the manner in which his depredations affect the characters, and how blood is treated in the novel. There's probably more, but it's been years since I really read the book. > It is important to recall that "Dracula" is definitely intended to be a > *horror* story, and that its vampires were intended to be *horrible.* Are you sure? I can agree that it was sold as a horror story, but I think there's a good possibility it was intended to be something else. > People who try to equate Stoker's vampires with sexuality base this on the > idea that Stoker and his contemporaries were so sexually repressed that they > regarded sex as horrible. But this seems to me very unlikely. While they It seems likely that Stoker himself may not have viewed sex as horrible. > were certainly more reserved about discussing it openly, I am reasonably > sure that most Victorians thought that sex was great, much as we do now. From what I recall from my shistory, individual Victorians may have liked sex, but as a general societal convention, sex was icky and distasteful. A wife's "duties" to her husband is a common theme, and in the book itself, note that Lucy is seen as somewhat daring and immodest because she virtually throws herself at her suitors, and shocks Mina with her forthrightness. Sex *definitely* wasn't talked about much, but there were also prevailing social mores that viewed that one should only succumb to these baser urges within the bounds of marraige, and then mostly just for procreation. Witness the variety of implements that were used to discourage masturbation and wet dreams. > > Did you read Frankenstein as a pure horror story? > > I believe my phrase (with reference to "Dracula") was "straight horror > story", by which I mean to say it is not an allegory (sexual or otherwise). > I did not use the phrase "pure horror story", nor do I have any idea > what you intend the phrase to mean.. A rewording...my apologies, I didn't mean to confuse you. In the quoted sentence, I meant "pure" as a synonym for "straight", as it seemed to have fewer sexual connotations. > And no, I don't think "Frankenstein" is an allegory either, and > certainly not a sexual one. (In other words, it is a "straight horror I'm sure one could look for sexual messages within Frankenstein. Wasn't there something about domination of women by forceful men, the monster wanting to create a woman, etc.? > story"). It has a moral and a message, of course, and Shelly is > pretty up-front about it (it is pretty much announced in the subtitle).. Personally, I think it's a pretty boring story, so I don't keep a copy around, but doing a quick websearch, I'm guessing that you're referring to "the Modern Prometheus"? I'm not really sure where you're going with this one, would you care to explain? The only think I can think of off the top of my head is Dr. Frankenstein being the modern fire-bringer (reanimation), and being punished for it. I really hope that's not what you meant, because there isn't a whole lot of evidence in the story to support that. > (BTW, in case anyone has not read it, Shelly kicks Stoker's ass in > the horror department. No film version yet made has done her novel, > or her monster, justice.) I think the only version of Frankenstein that I've seen was Young Frankenstein, and while funny, wasn't really about the Shelley story. I don't have a whole lot of interest in it though, as the book is fairly dry, IMO. For a number of essays showing different readings of _Frankenstein_, including a couple on sexuality/relationships, check this out (first good hit on hotbot): http://www.watershed.winnipeg.mb.ca/Frankenstein.html > > The Jungle is just something about a guy in a meat factory? > > May well be for all I know. I never read it. Does the "meat" represent sex? Hardly. Just curious, as it has one of the most thinly-veiled messages ever. > > 1984...just another sordid, tawdry romance in a futuristic police > >state? > > Getting carried away, aren't you? Why do you imagine I possess such Not really, looking at the lengths you've gone to in defending some of your "points" in other messages. > an opinion? That is certainly not the one-line review I would give for > "1984". However, it is certainly not a sexual allegory. If it were, that > would probably cheapen it, and make it sordid and tawdry. It is definitely not *primarily* a sexual allegory, and I admit that it would be time-consuming to find evidence of a message about sex in the book. It could certainly be done though, and that doesn't make any message about sex in it less valid. > <snip more straw-man literary opinions you falsely imagine I possess> I never said that you possessed them. That's why I was asking. > {re: idea that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula] > > Go right ahead...it was obviously dreamed up by some idiot in an ivory > > tower who knows nothing about the subject. > > Now yer catchin on! So, you basically object to literary criticism, but attempt to derive messages from novels using critical techniques. Interesting contradiction. > > Actually, I don't think that's what he intended. I think he intended > > elements of horror in the novel in order to bypass censors, and to > > keep it titillating for his Victorian readers, > > Hmm. This statement is a bit nebulous. By denying that he intended it Not really. > as "straight horror" do you mean that he intended it as sexual allegory? He may have, and it's certainly a message you can find lots of evidence for in the book. > Do you think he really desired to write soft-core porn, but was forced > disguised it as horror? Why else would he wish to get anything past Perhaps. > the censors? If soft-core porn or erotic drama were his real interest, then > how come he knew so much about folklore? I think that the "so much" in there is a little bit of an overstatement. You've got blood, vague mystical powers, and crucifixes. It would, for example, be relatively easy to assume that he merely happened to be vacationing in Eastern Europe, found a little bit of information on local customs and superstitions, and decided that this would make a good story. > Francis Ford Coppola seems to have bought into ideas such as these. Coppola and a number of other people. As James mentions, it's certainly not the only interpretation of the book, but your dislike of this reading of it does not make it invalid. > In his so-called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", he insists on taking the count > seriously as a romantic and erotic hero. He makes the alleged I would replace the word "hero" with "figure", but that's basically correct. > hidden eroticism of the novel quite explicit, presumably on the assumption > that this is what Stoker would have wanted had not those mean > Victorian censors stopped him. The resulting film is a bit of a joke, I think that you're underestimating Victorian morality, as far as its pervasiveness and opposition to sex/eroticism. I find the original novel to be fairly plain to read, and calling it either "hidden" or "alleged" is questionable. > not scary, and impossible to take seriously as horror -- arguably one of I doubt it was intented to be taken as scary or "serious" horror. > the least successful adaptations of the novel. Particularly Much better and more faithful to the original than any other except perhaps, for the original _Nosferatu_. > funny is the scene where a "horrified" Harker is fed upon by Dracula's > brides, there portrayed as a trio of luscious bare-breasted beauties > caressing him on satin sheets. Thank God he was able to escape! Again, I feel that, considering the prevailing morals of the time, along with Harker's devotion to his "pure" wife, his horror was not intended to be fake, even if the vampiresess were beautiful. There is about a page in the novel that goes on about their features and how they are fairly attractive in general. Coppola's version seems fairly faithful. > > but it's also not that much of a leap (for me, at least) to read hidden > > desires in the actions of the characters. > > You are once again being extremely nebulous here. Which characters I was providing a conclusion, not making a separate point. Xian

Cameron wrote: >> And no, I don't think "Frankenstein" is an allegory either, and >> certainly not a sexual one. (In other words, it is a "straight horror >> story"). It has a moral and a message, of course, and Shelly is >> pretty up-front about it (it is pretty much announced in the subtitle).. > >Then you are on crack. I suppose you think that the monster in that >story is the reanimated corpse too. Whats the moral, don't try to >reanimate corpses? No. The moral concerns the dangers of modern science and its misapplication. Frankenstein's monster (who is not a reanimated corpse -- you are confusing the book with the films) is presented as a dangerous product of medical science, created by a medical scientist. This is not allegory but straight surface presentation.

>> "MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote: >> People who try to equate Stoker's vampires with sexuality base >> this on the idea that Stoker and his contemporaries were so >> sexually repressed that they regarded sex as horrible. But >> this seems to me very unlikely. > > Xian wrote: > It seems likely that Stoker himself may not have viewed sex as > horrible. While I'm not going to wade waist deep in this rather lively debate since I largely agree with James Coupe's and Xian's having several of his books and short stories, I do feel the need to bring up one point here. Based on wehat I've read of his writing and accounts of his life, he actually did view sex as "horrible." More accurately, he completely subscribed to the Victorian morality and viewed immoral sex (meaning that which occurrs outside of marriage) as something that is horrible and such brazen lust, preversion and seduction as was heavily implied in Dracula would be frightening or, at the very least, quite shocking to men of the time. For example, imagine the reaction of a man were he taken from 1875 England and placed into the time of Caligula. I can assure you that he wouldn't react pleasantly. Regards, Noal

Noal wrote: > Based on wehat I've read of his writing and accounts of his life, >he actually did view sex as "horrible." More accurately, he completely >subscribed to the Victorian morality and viewed immoral sex (meaning >that which occurrs outside of marriage) as something that is horrible I know nothing of Bram Stokers life, and, as far as I know, both statements you make above are true. But allow me to point out that the second statement you make, which you say is "more accurate", has little to do with the first. If is perfectly possible to regard sex outside of marriage as immoral, and still think of sex (within marriage) as great. In fact, I believe this is the usual attitude among those who oppose non-marital sex, even in Victorian times. .

James Coupe wrote: >Indeed, many things can be metaphoric. One of the useful things about >metaphors is that they allow you to compare and contrast the >similarities and differences between two items, delineating knowledge >and improving insight into both items at the same time. > >Metaphors do not, however, immediately make one thing the other. There >is only so far that a metaphor can be taken. One element of criticism >and interpretation is recognising how far these metaphors can be taken, >and on what levels - figurative, literal, psychological, sociological >etc. These paragraphs suggest that we are speaking at cross purposes due to different terminology. To my mind, the concept of a metaphor applies only one thing directly represents another. Similes and comparisons do not a metaphor make. When an element is said to "represent" sex, I take this as meaning considerably more than saying that it can be related to sex or linked to sex, or that connections can be drawn to sex. It is the former approach that I dislike, as I feel that it has a tendency to oversimplify and reduce literature to base elements by a failure to draw distinctions. While one thing can often be related to another, and this can add to appreciation and understanding (if the relationship is close enough to be meaningful), equating them can blur distinctions and oversimplify. >>OK. You are more than welcome, if you can, to explain how this particular >>theory improves one's understanding and appreciation of the story. > >Why would you have literary interpretation solely address the story >aspect? It can be far more enriching and rewarding than just that. >Indeed, a well-written piece of literature can be, indeed some might say >*should* be, about far more than simply the story. Once again, we are at semantic cross purposes. To me, the concept of a story encompasses everything in it. I do not think of "story" as a separate abstract element of a work of fiction. But rather than nitpick over words I would rather present a specific example from Dracula (which is both the first erotic passage and the first bloodsucking passage), and attempt to show why a metaphorical reading, with bloodsucking representing sex, actually interferes with the appreciation of the passage. Perhaps, even if you do not agree with me entirely, you will at least have some idea where I am coming from. If all remain totally unimpressed, I will give up and stop trying to explain myself, as my ideas are receiving little sympathy overall, and I have no desire to keep hit my head against walls. The passage occurs in Chapter 3, and involve Harkers first encounter with Dracula's three "brides"or "children". While wandering in a forbidden part of the castle, Harker falls asleep and wakes up to find 3 alluring but subtly repulsive young women standing nearby. While Harker pretends to be asleep, the three beauties talk in a manner that makes it sound like they wish to make erotic love to him. "He is young and strong" they say. "There are kisses(*) enough for us all." Harker, at this point, experiences a definite erotic thrill, including an "agony of delightful anticipation," as one of the young women approaches him. There can be no doubt as to the reason for Harker's erotic thrill, as even a "repressed" Victorian can figure out what Harker *thinks* these beauties have in mind. [(*) "Kisses" is a metaphor, but, ironically, it is a reverse of the sort under debate. Sex is being used as a metaphor for vampirism, rather than the other way around. Similarly, with the terms "brides" and "children", normal human relationships are used as metaphors for a unique vampiric one] But to believe that bloodsucking is a metaphorical representation of sex, or to otherwise believe that vampiric bloodsucking is erotically appealing, is, I think, to miss out on the dark humour and irony of this situation. Appreciation of this irony depends on keeping the concepts separate, and of realizing that what Harker *thinks* they intend, and what they *actually* intend are fundamentally different. Confounding the concepts detracts from the mounting horror that results when both Harker and the reader realize that what the ladies actually intend is SOMETHING ELSE. And while this passage is undoubtedly erotic, it seems to me that the effect that Stoker is trying to achieve here is primarily one of horror, rather than titiliation. I find it comparable to the scene in The Shining, where Jack Torrance is lured into the arms of what seems to be a beautiful naked woman, only to discover that she is in fact SOMETHING ELSE. The eroticism and titilation is significant primarily as an illusion, that leads to the shock of realization and grotesque contrast. I think that the effect that Stoker was attempting to achieve here can fairly be surmised from their context. The opening 4 chapters -- arguably the best part of the book -- are justly famous for their gradually mounting horror. I don't think this effect was achieved accidentally. Stoker must have been fairly well focussed on producing just that result. So anyway the scene continues. The vampire presses lips, tongue, and fangs against Harker's flesh, and, despite a subtly repulsive smell of blood on her breath, the erotic illusion remains, as he waits in "langourous ecstasy" for whatever she will do next. But before she can go further, the count intervenes, and throws her off. Harker still pretends to sleep. He hears the women demand that Dracula give them *something* to feed on, and, instead of Harker, Dracula offers them a small child that he has just captured, and the three vampire-women proceed to feed on the child instead. Both Harker and the audience figure out what is going on at this point, and any illusions are destroyed. The erotic illusion is, in fact, shattered far more effectively than if the women had actually fed on Harker. The first *actual* boodsucking portrayed in the book involve these women devouring a small child. Not only is it difficult to imagine anyone seeing this as erotically appealing; but the development seems expressly calculated to destroy whatever appeal these women may have seemed to possess. It reveals them as being the grotesque reverse of what a woman's nature is supposed to be. They are not the type to nurture children; they devour them instead. Rather than suckling children, they suck *on* them. I suspect that most men would find this quite a turn-off, no matter how physically attractive she might otherwise appear to be. It certainly seems to have this effect on Harker, who is so horrified that he passes out. While he was quite up-front in admitting their initial erotic appeal for him, we hear no more such nonsense afterwards. We hear no more poetic descriptions of their eyes and hair and skin. He merely says things like "nothing can be more dreadful than those awful women" and "Faugh! Mina is a woman and there is naught in common. They are demons of the Pit." Shortly after making this latter statement, he attempts a near-suicidal climb to freedom, because he figures no death can be more dreadful than one at their hands.

Xian wrote: .>She [Lucy] also desires blood from her human suitors, IIRC. At minimum, they >"donate blood" to her, inan attempt to bring that healthy look back to >her pale features. This certainly has a lot of possibilities, as far >as the sex metaphor goes. Stoker, as i recall, has a quite a bit of fun with the idea that donation of blood represents marriage. Van Helsing explicitly points out that if you carry the idea too far, it leads to ridiculous and unnacceptable conclusions. The notion ends up as a joke. Metaphors and similes may be valuable, but so are distinctions. >Call it loose games of association if you wish, but I haven't had to >dig very far to find supporting evidence..."Said he not that the >transfusion of his blood to her veins had made her truly his bride?" >(p.182, shortly after Lucy's death) There's lots more where that came >from. There may be more where this came from, but it is the worst example you could have chosen. The idea being expressed here is explicitly exposed in the novel as being erroneous. Unless, of course, you agree that Lucy really *was* a bigamist just because all three suitors (four, if you include Dracula) transferred blood to her.

Xian wrote: >> And no, I don't think "Frankenstein" is an allegory either, and >> certainly not a sexual one. (In other words, it is a "straight >horror > >I'm sure one could look for sexual messages within Frankenstein. Would not make it allegory. >Wasn't there something about domination of women by forceful men, Not that I recall, but the story did lack strong female characters. >the >monster wanting to create a woman, etc.? He wanted a mate, yes. He was quite up-front about it. No allegory here. You are clearly confused as to what "allegory" means. >> story"). It has a moral and a message, of course, and Shelly is >> pretty up-front about it (it is pretty much announced in the >subtitle).. > >Personally, I think it's a pretty boring story, so I don't keep a copy >around, but doing a quick websearch, I'm guessing that you're >referring to "the Modern Prometheus"? I'm not really sure where >you're going with this one, would you care to explain? The only think >I can think of off the top of my head is Dr. Frankenstein being the >modern fire-bringer (reanimation), and being punished for it. I >really hope that's not what you meant, because there isn't a whole lot >of evidence in the story to support that. "The Modern Promethius" is of course a reference to science and scientists, who bring new knowledge and powers to mankind. Frankenstein is a scientist who invents new life, and usurps a power traditionally reserved for God. (Incidentally, you are mistaken in assuming the book has anything to do with re-animation. That is the films, not he book.) >For a number of essays showing different readings of _Frankenstein_, >including a couple on sexuality/relationships, check this out (first >good hit on hotbot): >http://www.watershed.winnipeg.mb.ca/Frankenstein.html A brief lookover of the site showed nothing that indicated anything implying the presence of allegory in Frankenstein. You seem to be of the opinion that all literary criticism and commentary has to do with allegory. If so, you surely do not understand the term. >> an opinion? That is certainly not the one-line review I would give >for >> "1984". However, it is certainly not a sexual allegory. If it >were, that >> would probably cheapen it, and make it sordid and tawdry. > > It is definitely not *primarily* a sexual allegory, and I admit that > it would be time-consuming to find evidence of a message about sex in > the book. It could certainly be done though, and that doesn't make > any message about sex in it less valid. If a metaphor is not sustained throughout the book, then one cannot call it sexual allegory, because the term "allegory" has a fairly narrow definition. Messages (whether intended or no) can be derived from all stories -- but all stories are not therefore allegories. >> {re: idea that drinking blood represents sex in Dracula] >> > Go right ahead...it was obviously dreamed up by some idiot in an >ivory >> > tower who knows nothing about the subject. >> >> Now yer catchin on! > >So, you basically object to literary criticism, but attempt to derive >messages from novels using critical techniques. Interesting >contradiction. What? I do not object to literary criticism and analysis. I engage in it myself. I object to interpretations I disagree with, such as "drinking blood in Dracula represents sex". Where is the contradiction in that? >Again, I feel that, considering the prevailing morals of the time, >along with Harker's devotion to his "pure" wife, his horror was not >intended to be fake, even if the vampiresess were beautiful. There is >about a page in the novel that goes on about their features and how >they are fairly attractive in general. Coppola's version seems fairly >faithful. Please see the section, in response to James Coupe, where I analyse this particular passage, as it is treated by Stoker. I seem to recall Coppola's version as being quite different in tone and effect, despite some superficial similarities.

Xian wrote: >> A lot of interesting (*) things might be said about the significance >> and real-life applicability of the vampire myth, both in folklore >> and as portrayed in Stoker's novel. One may note, for instance, >> the significance of the vampire as a personification of disease, >> contagion, and lingering death. Garlic, an extremely nutritious >herb >> known to boost the immune system, is said to be proof against them. > >Ah, but that's not a non-allegorical reading of it. You're turning >the vampire into a symbol of disease, which quickly turns this into >something other than a "straight" reading of the book. You are confused as to the meaning of the term "allegory". In the story Dracula (as in folklore) the vampire literally *is* a source of illness, contagion, and lingering death. But he is also a person, and the story will not be better understood if you ignore this fact. Therefore, a "straight reading" is necessary. The associations made above merely present possible relationships between the story and "real life". This can be done with all stories, but all stories are not therefore allegories. >> If another sort of real-life applicability is desired, one may >compare >> the relationship between a vampire and his victim to various >real-life >> relationships between men and women, in which one partner is so >> arrested and infantile in his/her emotional development, and so >> emotionally needy, that he/she ends up emotionally devouring, >> and ultimately destroying, his or her partner. In real life, such >> relationships are often (on the surface) romantic or sexual.(**) > >More allegory...you're turning this into a psycho-social reading of >the book. Which certainly isn't a bad thing, but it's definitely not >a "straight" readin Nonsense. Dracula is a person. To suggest that he may have characteristics in common with real people in real life, or that lessons drawn from his story can be applied to similar but non-identical situations, has nothing to do with making his story into an allegory. It is merely a form of commentary, an attempt to find relevance and relationships and applicability. It does not require us to pretend that Dracula was intended to be anything other than he is literally presented as being.

Cameron wrote: [re Coppola's portrayal of Harker & the Vampire Ladies] >That was accurate to their description in the book. Really? In the book, they never actually feed upon him. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall the devouring of the child being portrayed in the film. I guess Coppola realized this would spoil the eroticism. >Only through high >morals and pure love for his girl was he able to escape the clutches >of the ravenous beasts. Thank God indeed. High morals and true love had little to do with it (in the book at least). When he thought they were women, he seemed prepared to let them make love to him, and escaped only because Dracula intervened. After that, he saw them devour the child and figured out what they truly were. There was no more need of high morals. He fled from them in a perfectly understandable state of abject terror for his life. Please see my analysis of this passage in my response to J. Coupe. >As for the censors, yes he >did need to get a bit around them. >That didn't stop him from writing >a good story though. Agreed. >In a deeper way though, the actual myths of >Dracula place him in a similiar position of erotic monster. The movie >was infact so "unsucessful" because it remained true to the plot of >the book. I disagree. While he may have been faithful in some details, Coppola missed to boat when he assumed Stoker was going for titilation rather than horror. So he enhances the eroticism, but fails to include the devouring of the child, which, in Stoker's sequence, is the shock and horror that destroys the erotic illusion. >If you didn't see it as horror, then you've become to jaded >to what Victorian horror is. You have forgotten the devouring of the child AND of its mother, if you think that a reasonably faithful adaptation (at least as faithful as Coppola's) could not have been more horrifying than Coppola's.. > As a test, do you think that The Raven >by Poe is scary? Poe's "The Raven" was never scary. But it was (and is) horrifying (in a sort of humorous way) in that it portrays psychological and existential dispair.

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20010819113853...@mb-mm.news.cs.com... > You are confused as to the meaning of the term "allegory". In the story You are correct. However, you are the one who misapplied it in the first place. Message-ID: <20010818072439...@mb-ma.news.cs.com> "...nonsensical porno-allegory..." And you've been known to be confused by slight changes in terminology. Replace "allegory" with "metaphor" in my post, and it's all good. > Dracula (as in folklore) the vampire literally *is* a source of illness, > contagion, and lingering death. But he is also a person, and the story will > not be better understood if you ignore this fact. Therefore, a "straight I don't think that the "fact" of his existence is intended to be ignored. He is a character in the book, his actions have effects on others. It would be a hard job to read the book and attempt to ignor his presence init. > >More allegory...you're turning this into a psycho-social reading of > >the book. Which certainly isn't a bad thing, but it's definitely not > >a "straight" readin > > Nonsense. Dracula is a person. To suggest that he may have characteristics in > common with real people in real life, or that lessons drawn from his story can It's still no longer a straight reading. > It is merely a form of commentary, an attempt to find relevance and > relationships and applicability. It does not require us to pretend that > Dracula was intended to be anything other than he is literally presented as > being. Nor was the blood = sex pretending Dracula was something other than he is presented as. You seem to be going around in circles with this. Xian

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20010819110533...@mb-mm.news.cs.com... [snip quote] > There may be more where this came from, but it is the worst example you could > have chosen. The idea being expressed here is explicitly exposed in the novel I wouldn't know. As mentioned, I haven't read the book in years, and during a quick flip through from a random spot near the middle, this is the first passage that jumped out at me. I spent less than 15 seconds looking. > as being erroneous. Unless, of course, you agree that Lucy really *was* a > bigamist just because all three suitors (four, if you include Dracula) > transferred blood to her. You're confusing the metaphor. Obviously, there was no real marraige, but the transfusion of blood represented a consummation of sorts for some of the characters. Referring to the transfusion as a consummation of sorts could indeed make it seem that Lucy was a bigamist, even with the knowledge of all of her suitors. Hmm...interesting idea...exploring the themes of relationships with multiple partners within Dracula. Heh. Xian

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20010819111749...@mb-mm.news.cs.com... > Xian wrote: [metaphors in Frankenstein] > >Wasn't there something about domination of women by forceful men, > > Not that I recall, but the story did lack strong female characters. IIRC, there were about 3 female characters that were dominated by their husbands/brothers/whatever, and the monster wanted to create a female companion (presumably to dominate as well). Seems like you could go somewhere with that. > "The Modern Promethius" is of course a reference to science and scientists, who > bring new knowledge and powers to mankind. Frankenstein is a scientist who > invents new life, and usurps a power traditionally reserved for God. So the moral of the story is...what, "don't go usurping God's powers or you'll suffer"? You really didn't explain this fully. If that's all the moral is, it seems to me that you're missing out on a big part of the book. > (Incidentally, you are mistaken in assuming the book has anything to do with > re-animation. That is the films, not he book.) You are right...it's been quite a while since I read it, and I never cared for it. Still, the differences aren't that great. "Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption." Frankenstein was apparently interested in discovering that secret too. > What? I do not object to literary criticism and analysis. I engage in it You certainly seem to. > myself. I object to interpretations I disagree with, such as "drinking blood > in Dracula represents sex". Where is the contradiction in that? Ah. So no interpretations are valid except your own? It seems a contradiction to me, in that you are almost certainly not open to new ideas or interpretations of a story. Is there only one right reading of any story? Hardly. Xian

Perhaps the parties still interested in this thread could continue it in email or on an appropriate newsgroup, since it has wandered very off-topic for this newsgroup. Thanks, Scott -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote in message news:<20010818193722...@ng-bk1.news.cs.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but the monster is the acutual Doctor. Not to mention humankind. The "monster" that is created learns to love, learn, and function in a society that rejects and tries to destroy it. The monster at the end of the book who talks to the ship captian (in the frame story) laments this. The "monster" is merely child like, but possessing great strengh, and non-understanding the consequences of his actions. Cameron "oh my were off topic" Domer

Sheafer, you're a shifty, shifty guy. You've started arguing that drinking blood is clearly not intended to be a sexual act, and that your complaint is with academics who construct "Dracula" into a sexual allegory, but that's not what your argument started out as. Back when this thread was about the sexual content of the card Social Charm, Xian pointed out that the sexual theme was perfectly in line with the sexual themes of the vampire myth in general and with "Dracula" in particular: Xian wrote: > . . . The vampire myth (in its > current, post-Victorian state) is all about eroticism, the act of > drinking blood taking the place of sex, etc. . . Your response was: > . . . a number of > interesting things (which I won't go into for now) could be said > about the possible significance and applicability of the vampire > myth, all of which are reduced to abject nonsense if you assume > that the act of drinking blood represents sex. . . . See the straw man? Xian was talking about bloodsucking TAKING THE PLACE OF sex. You pretended he was talking about bloodsucking REPRESENTING sex. Obviously one of the horrors of the vampire myths is that the sex act/drive is replaced with the hunger for blood. Stoker's Van Helsing said as much, and as your own post about the three seductive vampires in Dracula's castle would suggest, the main reason vampires would want to have Social Charm would be to get into a position where they could feed. Or Bleed.

In message <20010819004726...@mb-fg.news.cs.com>, MSheafer33 <mshea...@cs.com> writes >These paragraphs suggest that we are speaking at cross purposes due to >different terminology. To my mind, the concept of a metaphor applies only one >thing directly represents another. It does, mostly. (Though be careful of confusing this with a metonym, which is slightly different, involving making one aspect the whole.) However, this is *representation*. One may talk about a spotlight as being the sun. This does not make the spotlight *actually* the sun. Metaphor often works on the level of similes in the background. That is, whilst it is not presented as a simile textually, in substance it is often effectively a simile, with undefined aspects. Rather than something being specifically "as cool as a cucumber" - thus delineating the aspects for comparison quite closely. A metaphor allows it to be somewhat more open-ended, somewhat more subjective yet effectively an undefined collection of similes. >When an element is said to "represent" sex, I take this as meaning >considerably more than saying that it can be related to sex or linked to sex, >or that connections can be drawn to sex. Connections can be drawn, and the trick is to work out how far those connections can go. On a purely image based level, working very crudely, comparison of a vampiric bite to sex has various useful points of cross-over - penetration, bodily fluids, potential rape overtones and so on. Comparing it on many other aspects of sex will leave it purely blank. One might mention pubic hair but it's wise to remember the Victorian aspect of, hmm, how to put it, self-censorship. If you go through a lot of fairy tales and so on as they were told at the time, there is a *lot* of sexual imagery, veiled. One of the simple rules of thumb tends to be that if it looks like a penis, it's a penis, a hole is a vagina and hair is pubic hair. Obviously, these need to be tempered with common sense - all too lacking in some slightly more forceful interpretations of a work, attempting to twist *every* aspect to fit a theme. And remember that Bram Stoker's Dracula has a moustache, IIRC, unlike many other portrayals. An interesting aspect to consider, even if later discarded. >>>OK. You are more than welcome, if you can, to explain how this particular >>>theory improves one's understanding and appreciation of the story. >> >>Why would you have literary interpretation solely address the story >>aspect? It can be far more enriching and rewarding than just that. >>Indeed, a well-written piece of literature can be, indeed some might say >>*should* be, about far more than simply the story. > >Once again, we are at semantic cross purposes. To me, the concept of a story >encompasses everything in it. There are many things *outside* a story of equally valid study. One common theme 'recently' is to consider a piece of literature as a free-standing entity, such that it grows and interacts. How you interpret it and why, how it changes and how it grows, are just as valid areas for thought and consideration. >But rather than nitpick over words I would rather present a specific example >from Dracula (which is both the first erotic passage and the first bloodsucking >passage), Exactly what I said. When working with direct practical criticism - as this would be if slightly expanded with a few textual references as one might do if given extracts from chapter three to examine critically - or new criticism - which tends to end up as a sequence of themed mini- practical criticisms - , it is possible to draw useful conclusions regarding that passage as a free-standing entity. (A nod to its existence within a whole work is, of course, more or less obligatory.) In the whole novel, tracing sexual imagery in such a manner may draw far more exciting and interesting conclusions than attempting to draw the specific utility of them in any given situation - after all, even the greatest of authors with a theme in hand (conscious, unconscious, ironic, sarcastic, whatever) may lack something in the execution. Comparing and contrasting an overview against the specifics may provide far more illumination than taking one specific passage which supports your view. (Again, taking that one specific passage and arguing it to the hilt would probably get you more research funding, however....) [ quoted text not captured ]