John is actually the character everyone pretends Snape is.
I'm sorry, I had to say a Harry Potter thing, and I don't remember a lot about Harry Potter.
my sister really likes the original frankenstein book, if you want to read classics
The only thing I know about Interview with a Vampire is that its own author condemned it after she became a born-again catholic and wrote a series of pulp novels about Christ. I don't even know if that's accurate either, I've just heard it somewhere and trust it blindly. This, admittedly, makes it sound kinda cool.
she was super-anti fan fiction and its the reason why ao3 is one of the few surviving big fan fiction sites, so thats probably true
I think an interesting wrinkle on the interpretation that Dracula represents a foreign impurity is that he is a total fucking weeb for Britain. But yeah, its really cool that John's love for lucy is such that he feels little jealousy, just love and concern for her.
If you're looking for other classic vampire books, try Carmilla! It's gay and came before Dracula.
spoiler
“Sometimes after an hour of apathy, my strange and beautiful companion would take my hand and hold it with a fond pressure, renewed again and again; blushing softly, gazing in my face with languid and burning eyes, and breathing so fast that her dress rose and fell with the tumultuous respiration. It was like the ardor of a lover; it embarrassed me; it was hateful and yet over-powering; and with gloating eyes she drew me to her, and her hot lips traveled along my cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, "You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one for ever." Then she had thrown herself back in her chair, with her small hands over her eyes, leaving me trembling.”
Pretty fuckin' gay for the 1800's. Also, if you're into it and looking for a more modern take on it, there's a cute but fairly campy webseries based on it. It definitely isn't for everyone, but it's cute and I really liked it. It's also more open about its queerness than the novella.
I'm not really a fan of when they turn tales of predators into fun little best-friend-y things, and this in general does not look like my bag. The "What if tihs monsternwas fun instead of scary" thing is a subversion that requires a familiarity with the subject to be enjoyed fully, that I simply do not have. I might look into Carmilla though, the summary sounds pretty cool. Even if I feel like the first two lines of the wikipedia entry spoiled it.
Even if I feel like the first two lines of the wikipedia entry spoiled it.
I just looked and yeah, rip i guess. It's still worth if you're into vampires, as a lot of tropes were born out of it, like the lesbian vampire, and the "mechanics" of vampires hadn't been set in stone yet. It's pretty short and in the public domain too. Sucks about the spoilers though, if anyones lurking, don't read the top of the wikipedia article.
It's very good! Also has a lot to say about anglo anxieties regarding race, class, sexuality, etc. in the late Victorian era.
My opinion differs somewhat. The first section at the castle was spooky and quite good. The rest of the novel was pretty boring. It was difficult to overlook the preachiness and casual racism and sexism. The epistolary format added an unwieldy layer of distance from the action and characters. Finally, the ending made no sense. They stabbed him with a knife and he turned to dust, but turning to dust was previously established as one of his powers. And stabbing with a knife wasn't an effective method to kill him.
However, I'll take this opportunity to give a shout out to Bela Lugosi and 1931's Dracula movie adaptation. It's worth a watch!
