Vampires

This paper will be concentrating on comparing the vampires in Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. This article will find that Count Dracula in Dracula is generally from the general public because of his insidious activities, on the other hand Edward Cullen in Twilight is acknowledged by his family and Bella under the support of his humanistic methodology notwithstanding his species. This exposition will inspect Dracula’s conduct as a mean or unadulterated wickedness approach. In Twilight, Edward will be analyzed in a humanistic approach.

The fiction of vampire in writing has changed along the hundreds of years. The classic vampire is a savage beast which can be seen in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Then again, the modern vampire is more like a human, lovely, and thoughtful, which can be found in Meyer’s Twilight. The modern vampires are not malicious; however, these vampires are outsiders in the society. These two sort of vampires have two terrifyingly unique supporters. The supporters of the classic vampire want Dracula to be a beast. The supporters of the modern vampire need a vampire to be a wonderful creature that does not have any desire to harm individuals. This is ordinarily appeared by having the vampire as an American young teen.

The exemplary vampire is not quite the same as the advanced one. Around a couple of hundreds of years back, the paradigm of vampire in writing was brought into the world with Bram Stoker’s amazing novel Dracula. Around then in England, the vampires may have been looked as the ultimate beast and consequently the vampire fiction were of the loathsomeness type. The tale of Dracula has basically underlined those emotions and become an exemplary for vampire class in writing.

Bram Stoker depicted his Dracula as an alarming vampire. Dracula has a lot more capacities that credited to vampires, for example, shapeshifting and mind control. Dracula can transform himself into either a wolf or a bat. He can also change himself into fog and smoke. Dracula utilizes these capacities when he is discovering his next feast or getting away from his enemy. In spite of having these capacities. Dracula appears to pull in any lady that he needs and controls individuals to do what he needs. Dracula utilizes his control on anybody, he simply looks into his victim’s eyes and guides them. Dracula’s unfortunate casualties will do anything he desires them to. Dracula is made without human feelings, for example joy, love, etc. He is capable of negative feelings which makes Dracula so alarming.

As far back as Bram Stoker wrote his famous Dracula, the picture of vampires has been a work in advancement. The fiction of vampire in writing has moved from frightfulness to romance. During the last century, the vampires turned into the legend or the thoughtful figure to the per user whom related to, yet there are some local changes about the vampires. These thoughtful, present day vampires would prefer not to bolster from people, rather they want to drink the bloods of creatures so they do not kill a blameless individual. These advanced vampires don’t disengage themselves from society, yet they conceal their actual character and mix among people. These new, thoughtful, present day vampires acquaint something new with the writing that is the vampire can collaborate even become hopelessly enamored with a human.

In Twilight, the hero Edward Cullen is a vampire who is a veggie lover vampire that nourishes from creatures instead of people. Like Dracula, Edward has barbaric qualities and speed, yet in addition the capacity to read people minds which he uses to secure his vampire family and Bella. The big difference between Edward and Dracula is his love towards Bella. In the novel of Dracula, Dracula just has negative feelings which makes him so startling and colossal. Truth be told, Edward’s affection and his fixation to save Bella is his most humanistic side, when he is contrasted with Dracula.

The point of this essay was to analyze and compare the “vampires” of Dracula and Twilight, to demonstrate the connections of vampires with people worried about the change of vampires from Bram Stoker’s Dracula to Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. Stoker indicated how a vampire did not fit into human culture. It demonstrated the vampire as a monster and a killer without inner voice or human feelings. Then again, Meyer made an increasingly sympathetic vampire.

When we mention horror movies, especially monster movies, we often turn into zombies and vampires before the more monster-like monsters like King Kong, Godzilla and Water Monster. This is because these two monsters appear very early, can be said to be the ancestor of the monster movie; on the other hand, naturally, because the film industry is very keen on these two film themes, shooting very much The film, which is more classic. Why are these two monsters so popular, and even independently formed the two popular movie types of “zombie movies” and “vampire movies”?

In the earliest zombie movies and vampire movies, they all appeared in horror movies. At that time, the most classic zombies and vampires appeared. At that time, there were already many elements of later zombies and vampire movies. In “Night of the Living Dead ” of George A. Romero, the first five minutes of the movie, He’s wandering through a cemetery, wearing a shabby blazer, with the air of a distracted groundskeeper (Parker).

This is to describe the image of the zombie in the movie and how he appeared. It was in the American in the 1960s that the appearance of this film was explosive. Historians even believe that the film has brought “a devastating impact” to the American culture of the Vietnam War, affecting the values ​​of a generation; its release is a “great cultural event” in American history. He veered toward the mainstream in the early 2000s and currently enjoys a cultural profile unmatched even by his fancy-pants cousin, the vampire (Parker).

The earliest vampire movie was even earlier than in 1932. “North Fetura”, the first horror film in the history of the movie with a vampire, was born in 1922 and was born a decade earlier than the zombie film. Although the shooting time is long, the modern audience’s strangeness in watching this film is not so strong, and even there is a sense of intimacy. The shadow of the distortion in the film, the strange expression, the gloomy castle, became the standard configuration of the same type of horror film in the future.

At the beginning of its birth, vampires had a comprehensive advantage over zombies in the movie field. Even today, vampire movies are still hot. This is closely related to the cultural status of vampires. It is said that the first ancestor of the vampire was Cain, whose history is as old as the history of mankind itself. Medieval people enthusiastically believed in the existence of vampires, and the popularity of a large number of vampire legends made people culturally identify the existence of vampires. Enlightenment can’t completely eliminate the influence of vampires. The film art born in Western culture favors the image of vampires, and it is logical.

The corpse is not as important as the vampire. In fact, only the werewolves can be compared with vampires in folklore. The zombie is nothing but a horror legend from the Voodoo in Haiti, and the voodoo is just a primitive religion from the West African witchcraft that is mixed with Catholicism. It is barbaric and rude, and its status in Western culture is conceivable. know. Zombies are the most famous symbol of voodoo.

The curiosity of Westerners dealing with zombies is more of a curiosity and adventure. It is a famous director and a famous work to change the fate of zombie movies. In 1968, after 31 years of the first zombie movie, the first master-class zombie movie “The Night of the Dead” was finally released. Modern types of zombie movies are also finalized. “Night of the Dead” reverses the decline of zombie movies and injects vitality into this ancient theme. Since then, a large number of zombie-type film and television works have been filmed. These rising stars, “Dawn of the Dead” and “Amazing 28 Days”, have completely made zombie movies an independent film type.

The popularity of zombie movies and vampire movies is a fait accompli. Almost every year, there is a major impact on zombie movies or vampire movies. For example, the “Twilight City” series and the “Resident Evil” series in the previous two years. Many films have actually jumped out of the framework of horror movies. The first feeling that zombies and vampires bring to people is of course fear. However, pure fear is unable to prop up a film type.

For each type of film, there must be a corresponding culture behind it. Only with the support of culture can we guarantee that the subject matter will last forever and have a lasting vitality. The American in the 1960s was at its peak in the cold war. The horrors of nuclear war shrouded the entire Western world, and the temporary defeat of the Cold War dragged the country into the abyss of despair. The black affirmative movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and even the hippie movement, for a time the American society was in chaos. The end of the world depicted in The Dawn of the Living Dead is just a catering to people’s imagination.

This has also become the usual mode of zombie movies. The culture on which vampires depend is very clear. Various legends of the Middle Ages have created the legend of vampires. The Middle Ages was originally a time dominated by religion. At that time in Europe, the castle was everywhere, and the lord divided the party and had unrestrained power over the people under him, so that the people could be arbitrarily bullied. In the eyes of the people, these cruel lords are no different from monsters. Coupled with superstition, various legends have been created to form a vampire culture with a unique medieval character.

The nobility is the key word of modern vampire culture. As mentioned earlier, the horror of a vampire is its predator positioning. It is always high and ready to hurt humans. Aristocratic status seems to provide more rationality for this ability. In many vampire movies, vampires are not just monsters, but also organized and disciplined creatures that rule the world in the dark. And the vampires are highly hierarchical, and the family concept is extremely heavy, and they are more realistic about their aristocratic attributes.

It is said that the nobility may still be inaccurate, saying that the feudal aristocracy can more directly reflect the cultural source of the vampire. Predator attributes represent the absolute power of the lords of the feudal era to the people. This fear of absolute and unrestrained aristocratic power, which existed for thousands of years, has been deeply embedded in Western cultural memory.

Because of its external irritability, and its inherent connotation, it led to the extreme popularity and unusual richness of zombie movies and vampire movies. Perhaps in the future, as society changes, zombie movies and vampire movies will have more development.

Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’ is more a story of romance than it is of horror. What makes it very unique is that it is an allegory of the love affair of the soul, the body and the heart. In the novel, the most important love affairs are that of Mina and Jonathan and Dracula and Mina. Jonathan is the fist person in the novel to encounter Dracula and is also the lover of Mina at the same time. When Jonathan leaves for Transylvania to help Dracula purchase an estate, Dracula becomes aware of Mina, and soon becomes obsessed with the purity and devotion of this woman to her ‘would-be’ husband.

Later, the vampire, Dracula, because of his obsession with Mina, pollutes her by tempting her to drink his blood. Dracula want Mina for himself, not as a victim, but as his wife; but because of the devotion of Mina and Jonathan to each other, Jonathan pursues Dracula and frees his fiance from the curse of one day becoming the queen of the undead. In effect, the novel illustrates the duality of purity; the purity of Jonathan and Mina’s love and the purity of Dracula’s love for Mina.

While it is unfair to say that it is only Jonathan who has a pure kind of love for Mina, Dracula’s love for her is actually pure as well, but on a darker level, hence, at this point the novel shifts from a bizarre love triangle to a battle between good and evil. In the novel, there is mention of a particular character named Quincy Morris who is the third person to court Lucy, the best friend of Mina who also becomes a victim of Dracula. Morris is the ideal picture of the American gentleman. He is an adventurer and later gives up his own life in the battle against Dracula.

Morris is in the original version of the novel by Bram Stoker, however, in later versions of the story, as well as in film remakes, his character is not included. Upon reading the original version of the novel, it is clear that the role of Morris remains anchored on three basic and very minor concepts – minor paradox, accessory, and auxiliary, hence his inclusion from later versions of the novel. Very simply, Morris is like the sugar flowers on the cake, and without him the cake would still have its icing, hence, his role in the story is one that can be easily dispensed with without affecting the direction and the plot of the story.

Initially, let us tackle his role in being the ‘minor paradox’; this means that Morris is not part of the major paradox of the story, and so in later remakes, especially those from Hollywood, based on the principles of a classic Hollywood narrative, Morris no longer appears for the basic reason that in a classic Hollywood narrative, only the major paradox or source of conflict is actually considered. This particular thesis could be validated in the context of the original version of the novel itself. It will be noted that Morris is first mentioned in the novel in the letter of Lucy to Mina on the 24th of May.

(Stoker, page 87) Morris here is introduced as one of Lucy suitors, and she writes Mina to tell her about the suitors who came to her that day, of which Morris was one. (Stoker, page 90) Lucy, in her letter, describes the attributes of Mr. Morris, and more importantly, very discreetly refers to a tender infatuation for the man, in the lines, “Well, he did look so good humoured and so jolly that it didn’t seem half so hard to refuse him as it did poor Dr. Seward. ” (Stoker, page 91) Of course, because Lucy was in love with someone else, she refuses the courtship of Morris.

(Stoker, page 92) So, it is clear, even from this initial introduction given to the Morris character, that although he is part and parcel of an accessory conflict, he does not really figure in the major paradox. The refusal of Lucy is even a foreshadowing of the gravity of the role of this particular character. The subtle dismissal of Lucy of his courtship is an indication that although Morris goes on to do some pretty significant things in the story, he does is not actually of any significant connection to any of the major characters, more so, to a second level character like Lucy.

In this same chapter, Morris also writes a letter to a certain Arthur Holmwood, (Stoker, page 95) who is the suitor favored by Lucy. In his letter, he simply invites Holmwood to a drinking session with Dr. Seward. (Stoker, page 96) To this invitation, Holmwood obliges. Consider here that Seward is the doctor who runs the asylum right beside the estate purchased by Dracula, so Morris now begins to worm his way into the story. What is to note in the invitation of Morris, however, is the fact that the topic of their conversations was going to be his being rejected by Lucy.

There is a certain level of pain in his letter which was supposedly from Lucy’s rejection, hence the lines, “There are more yarns to be told, and more wounds to be healed. ” (Stoker, 96) This particular invitation propels the role of Morris to being worse, not just that he is a part of a minor conflict, but with this letter, he also becomes a nuisance or a distraction in the story, as he now manages to enter the main stream flow of the novel through Dr. Seward and Holmwood. His role as an accessory is validate more when he is sent by Holmwood to visit the ill Lucy who was then under the care of Dr.

Seward. (Stoker, page 237) In effect, his role is not relevant to the general conflict because what he does, is he simply stands in for main character or is an auxiliary to the main characters. As an auxiliary character, the text offers more validations in this direction. In the chapter where Van Helsing reveals his intention of cutting off the head of the corpse of Lucy (Stoker, page 329) the only comment that Morris offers is, “That is fair enough” (Stoker, page 329) in agreement of the verbal proposition of Dr. Morris.

It will be noted, that although this is the only line offered by Morris in this section, it would seem that he is the only one in agreement of the plans of Van Helsing, therefore, making him an auxiliary to the thoughts of the professor. Later, when they all go to do what Helsing had in mind, as revealed in the journal of Seward, Morris begins by simply ‘seconding’ the doubts of the two other men that they were with, that Helsing must have removed the body of Lucy prior to the operation that they were going through, so, here again, Morris is an adversarial auxiliary to Van Helsing, but with his statement, then becomes an ally of Helsing.

(Stoker, 333) Of course, later, when the actual act of re-killing Lucy is completed, Seward, Holmwood, and Morris, all become allies of Van Helsing in his advocacy against the undead, thus, confirming the auxiliary role of Morris in this particular novel. What is ironic though, is that these three men all had intimate encounters with Lucy, what set’s Morris apart from the three of them is the fact that during the time when Helsing was proposing to ‘re-kill’ Lucy, he was the one who offered the least resistance.

(Stoker, page 329) He was also in the group not because he loved Lucy like the other two chaps in the group, but because of his sense of adventure; quite a superficial reason, if perused properly. Finally, to further strengthen the argument that later versions of the novel would not have been any different even in the absence of Morris, it would help to consider his accessory role – one which, according to the definitions of literature, is simply a role that makes it easier for the major characters to move towards the plot and the climax of the story.

A role which also, all the more becomes very unnecessary in the classic Hollywood narrative because the struggles of the main characters towards the resolution of the plot are actually given more value than the act of making these struggles easier, defeating the steady escalation of conflict in the story. Morris does just this in the story, he hitches the escalation of the conflict, and offers periods of respite for the major characters – a role that should not exist if reader or viewer excitement was to be the main issue of consideration.

Morris remains faithful to this accessorial role again when he offers to go along with the ‘vampire hunting’ group to visit the madman, Renfield, who is a henchman of Dracula, in Seward’s asylum. (Stoker, page 387) Here, he poses no threat or favor, but rather is a mere observer; however, this particular scene moves Morris closer to meeting Dracula and, consequently, his demise. In this particular section of the story, Morris also witnesses the madman along with Jonathan Harker, the fiancee of Mina, hence, bringing him into the inner boundaries of the story.

Later, in Harker’s journal, he reveals another pivotal comment of Morris, when he narrates how Morris makes a comment about Renfield, “”Say, Jack, if that man wasn’t attempting a bluff, he is about the sanest lunatic I ever saw. I’m not sure, but I believe that he had some serious purpose, and if he had, it was pretty rough on him not to get a chance. ” (Stoker, page 394) Here, Morris becomes accessory to Helsing and Harker’s plot to pursue Dracula by actually fanning the flame of the supposed connection between Dracula and the madman.

However, this could have easily been done by Seward which all the more makes Morris assertion quite useless, and besides, even in the absence of this assertion, Harker and Helsing would have pursued their stance anyway. Later, with the accident of Renfield, Van Helsing is called upon to visit the asylum to help – then, by some turn of circumstance, Morris follows suit along with Holmwood. (Stoker, page 439) This sets the stage for other events that further validates the accessorial role of Morris.

In the later parts of the novel, Morris correctly offers to use horses instead of the more elaborate carriages that might attract attention (Stoker, page 467); he also, along with Holmwood, performed accessory operations like burning vampire nests; accessory to the operations of the major vampire hunter, Van Helsing (Stoker, page 478); Morris also ordered to talk to nobility to ensure the smoothness of their missions (Stoker, page 538), he also helped to defeat the gypsies with his bowie knife, (Stoker, page 597) and finally, he also validated the minority of his role by being the one to herd the horses during their mission to save Mina.

(Stoker, page 562) In the end, after all these laborious participations in the story, Morris is killed, and the only apparent payment for his death is the fact that the birthday of Mina’s and Jonathan’s first child falls on the date of the death of Morris. This is such a pathetic way to go for a character in the story who had done so much to assist the major characters, however, because his role was merely to complicate paradox, to auxiliarize, and to accessorize the major characters in the story, his role was very dispensable.

In the classic Hollywood narrative, the role of Morris would translate into added expense, added complication, and added actors for the producers. In later versions of the novel, his role served to take away focus from the main characters of the story. In effect, Morris was not only a useless character in the story, because although he assisted in the fulfillment of many pivotal circumstances, his participation could have been easily taken on by one of the major characters.

Another significant effect of the presence of Morris in the story is his diminutization of the role of Van Helsing; instead of fortifying the capacities of Helsing, he served to show that Helsing was bossy and was unable to do things on his own, therefore, staining the reputation of this particular major character.

In conclusion, the exclusion of Morris from other more recent versions of the novel, whether in written or movie form, could only have worked for the better. His absence has made the story clearer and aimed at a more distinct direction. After all, his role in the story is simply to contribute minor paradox, be an accessory, and be an auxiliary to the major characters, not directly affecting or influencing the outcome of the plot or the turn of major events.

His affiliation with Lucy does not even count, and neither does his accidental affinity to Jonathan and Mina; Morris was there as a part of a team that already existed, that may have well done just as good even in his absence. Works Cited Stoker, Bram. Dracula. New York: Plain Label Books, 2001. 90-595. 26 Apr. 2009 <http://books. google. com/books? id=sn9W2cLuhxYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bra m+stoker%27s+dracula&ei=J-TzSfCbG4uSkAT3w7SDBg>.