How does Dracula the novel compare to the other novels we've read so far? What is similar and what is different?
18 comments:
Amanda Holtsclaw
said...
Dracula is similar to the other novels we have read since they all deal with some supernatural like person who has some sort of quality that seems to make them some kind of "monster". It is also similar since the narrative does not come from the monster itself, but from different letters and diary entries from people who have had interactions with said monster. Dracula is different from the other characters in the novels we have read, in the way that this novel is way more gothic and spooky. This novel has to do with vampires, not a creation nor a potion gone wrong. Science hardly plays any role as it does in Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde. Dracula is also different in the fact that he seems pure evil to me. Frankenstein was more misunderstood, and Jekyll and Hyde had a good side as well. Dracula is just plain and simple evil.
In Dracula, there are a lot of similar things to Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde. Like how all of them have some sort of "bad" in them is a similarity. I do agree with Amanda though; Frankenstein was misunderstood, Hyde had a good side, and Dracula is more of pure evil. Other similarites are how there was violence, abnormal strength, and the story is told by someone other than the 'villian/monster.' Some differences are that in Dracula, he's a creature of the night, he didn't come from an experiment, and he more experienced...where in Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, there was more of a childlike vibe going on and science was a main reason why the 'monsters' were created.
Dracula goes along with our moster theme and it seems to be more of a horror style. He is similar to Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein by being evil but he does it in a more spooky way. Also like the 2 people stated above me, there is no science or experiment but he seems to rather have supernateral powers.
Dracula is similar to the previous novel we have read because it too deals with monsters, villains, and freaks. It has a component of evil and a component of the supernatural. Dracula is different, on the other hand, because Dracula is based off of myth of Vampires. Dracula is vastly different than the other creatures. He is centuries old, smart, and hold power. He is the master of the undead so he has people to make sure John doesn't leave the castle, and he has his maidens. Where as Frankenstein and Hyde are childlike, and they have no followers, they are isolated.
Dracula is different than the other two novels we have read because Dracula isn't created by using science whereas Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein are created by the use of science. One similarity is they all have scary and repulsive appearances, which gives people the first impression that they are evil. Also all three books use letters to tell the story at least for part of the book.
Dracula is unique compared to the other novels we have read in that the character's evil nature is not facilitated by science. Dracula does not seem to have a sensitive or vulnerable aspect to him as Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll have. I agree with Amanda in that the Dracula novel is much more spooky, gothic, and has a sense of imminent danger.
Dracula should be considered differently from the other novels we have read because he actually has no reason to be evil. He is just plain evil. He has no remorse for what he does. With frankenstein and Dr. jekyll/hyde they at times have a little remorse of what they had done.
There are some similarities between the novel Dracula and the other novels, such as all three monster characters are evil and do evil things. One major difference is that although the Frankenstein monster and Jekyll/Hyde are evil, they do have reasons in being so, unlike Dracula who is purely evil. Also, another difference is that Dracula is "contagious". He changes people into vampires, which creates more evilness. I think this novel, by far, is the freakiest.
Dracula is similar and different from the other novels in a few different ways. It is similar in the aspect that it is about a "monster", and that it is not told from the perspective of the monster. It is different in the aspects that the other two novels we read, Jekyll and Hyde, and Frankenstein, the monsters were not totally malicious, they had there aspect of good in them. I think that is important to understand because Dracula's intent is purely evil, when Frankenstein is merely misunderstood, and Jekyll is a respectable man - and Hyde just brings him down.
Dracula is a lot scarier, to me, than the other novels. The scenes portrayed are more horrific in a surreal kind of way. Today's audienceis overexposed to violence of all kinds, so mere violence does not shock the audience the way it used to - it has lost it's novelty and scandalous nature. Dracula is a lot creepier, deals in myth and legend, the kind of things that people are afraid of late at night.
Dracula is very similar to the other novels we have read. IT has the theme of isolation. Also a deformed appearance in the way he looks like a corpse. The differences are that Dracula is functional being, without childlike attitudes. Also he morphs into a bat as where the other monsters stay like they are.
Dracula is much like the books Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein in that the creature who is focused on in the novel is one that exemplifies some set of grotesque features that give the other characters in the story some reason to fear it. Whether its the extremely sharp teeth, the physical deformities or just downright ugliness, each monster, villain and freak in the three stories portrays its own unique aspect of horror. What sets Dracula apart from the rest of these is how Dracula himself (itself?) was spawned. Unlike Victor Frankenstein's monster and Jekyll's alter ego, Hyde which were consciously created, Dracula's origins are not really known, adding to the mystery and creepiness.
This novel compares and contrasts to the other two novels in major ways. First, it follows the monsters, villains, and freaks format. I feel like this villain is definately the most developed. The other two monsters were either immature or forced to adapt over time. With this novel the antagonist is already at the height of his power, and ready to use it. Also, this is the first villain that has an appeal. The other freaks caused other people to be very frightened, but Dracula has something about him that people can't help but feel attracted towards. This is probably the biggest difference in the three monsters. Something that is similar between the three of them is that they are all murderers. They have all killed innocent people or children, making them all equally evil.
Dracula, similar to the other novels we've read, is a monster/freak/villain character. Also similarly, his appearance is deformed and he looks scary, not fitting into the norm, as seen with Hyde and the monster. However, Hyde and the monster were the result of scientific experiments, gone bad. I think there is more sympathy with those two characters than there is with Dracula as he is just frightening and evil. Also, Dracula is a disease, whereas the other monsters were not at all.
Agreeing with a couple of comments above, Dracula is different because the monster is not created by science, and the novel doesn't deal with science as much in general. Also, the monster-like characters in this novel are different; they are more intense and obvious than previous stories weve read. It is the same because like Jekyll and Hyde, Hyde tries to hide his differences and monster-like features, as well as Dracula tries to do at the beginning of the novel. They are the same because they both deal with crazy characters and a character that is scared for his life.
Dracula, along with the other novels and films deal with a monster, villain, or freak terrorizing the public. All three deal with a supernatural force. In Frankenstein, there was the scientific experiment that led to the creation of a murderous, yet misunderstood monster. In J/H, another scientific experiment dealing with duality of human nature ended with a murderous human terrorizing people. Dracula however is not created by science, he is more of a disease. There is something appealing about Dracula that people cannot resist following. They all deal with isolation.
Dracula is different because the story is collected by several different characters that each give their different views. Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were both told by a third person party. We never actually hear anything from the monsters they are describing. Dracula is different from the other two because he wasn't a son of science. Dracula and the monster from Frankenstein are similar because their violence had a purpose. Frankenstein's monster wanted to kill it's creator and Dracula wants to create a new race of vampires. Hyde, however, just does whatever he gets the impulse to do.
Dracula is similar to other novels we've read because it deals with a similar plotline: there is a somewhat supernatural monster and the small few who know of his existence, a need to protect someone from the monster, and a culminating battle between good and evil at the end. Dracula is different though, partially because he is based on pre-written legend, so his characteristics aren't really left up to authorial interpretation. Also, he is the first non-created monster that we have read about; both Hyde and Frankenstein were products of human experimentation. The existence of Dracula suggests a new theme that we haven't before encountered: the idea that monsters, freaks, and villains are created by nature, or a divine source - because, from all the given evidence, there is no one human who "created" the first vampire.
18 comments:
Dracula is similar to the other novels we have read since they all deal with some supernatural like person who has some sort of quality that seems to make them some kind of "monster". It is also similar since the narrative does not come from the monster itself, but from different letters and diary entries from people who have had interactions with said monster. Dracula is different from the other characters in the novels we have read, in the way that this novel is way more gothic and spooky. This novel has to do with vampires, not a creation nor a potion gone wrong. Science hardly plays any role as it does in Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde. Dracula is also different in the fact that he seems pure evil to me. Frankenstein was more misunderstood, and Jekyll and Hyde had a good side as well. Dracula is just plain and simple evil.
In Dracula, there are a lot of similar things to Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde. Like how all of them have some sort of "bad" in them is a similarity. I do agree with Amanda though; Frankenstein was misunderstood, Hyde had a good side, and Dracula is more of pure evil. Other similarites are how there was violence, abnormal strength, and the story is told by someone other than the 'villian/monster.'
Some differences are that in Dracula, he's a creature of the night, he didn't come from an experiment, and he more experienced...where in Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, there was more of a childlike vibe going on and science was a main reason why the 'monsters' were created.
Dracula goes along with our moster theme and it seems to be more of a horror style. He is similar to Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein by being evil but he does it in a more spooky way. Also like the 2 people stated above me, there is no science or experiment but he seems to rather have supernateral powers.
Dracula is similar to the previous novel we have read because it too deals with monsters, villains, and freaks. It has a component of evil and a component of the supernatural. Dracula is different, on the other hand, because Dracula is based off of myth of Vampires. Dracula is vastly different than the other creatures. He is centuries old, smart, and hold power. He is the master of the undead so he has people to make sure John doesn't leave the castle, and he has his maidens. Where as Frankenstein and Hyde are childlike, and they have no followers, they are isolated.
Dracula is different than the other two novels we have read because Dracula isn't created by using science whereas Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein are created by the use of science. One similarity is they all have scary and repulsive appearances, which gives people the first impression that they are evil. Also all three books use letters to tell the story at least for part of the book.
Dracula is unique compared to the other novels we have read in that the character's evil nature is not facilitated by science. Dracula does not seem to have a sensitive or vulnerable aspect to him as Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll have. I agree with Amanda in that the Dracula novel is much more spooky, gothic, and has a sense of imminent danger.
Dracula should be considered differently from the other novels we have read because he actually has no reason to be evil. He is just plain evil. He has no remorse for what he does. With frankenstein and Dr. jekyll/hyde they at times have a little remorse of what they had done.
There are some similarities between the novel Dracula and the other novels, such as all three monster characters are evil and do evil things. One major difference is that although the Frankenstein monster and Jekyll/Hyde are evil, they do have reasons in being so, unlike Dracula who is purely evil. Also, another difference is that Dracula is "contagious". He changes people into vampires, which creates more evilness. I think this novel, by far, is the freakiest.
Dracula is similar and different from the other novels in a few different ways. It is similar in the aspect that it is about a "monster", and that it is not told from the perspective of the monster. It is different in the aspects that the other two novels we read, Jekyll and Hyde, and Frankenstein, the monsters were not totally malicious, they had there aspect of good in them. I think that is important to understand because Dracula's intent is purely evil, when Frankenstein is merely misunderstood, and Jekyll is a respectable man - and Hyde just brings him down.
Dracula is a lot scarier, to me, than the other novels. The scenes portrayed are more horrific in a surreal kind of way. Today's audienceis overexposed to violence of all kinds, so mere violence does not shock the audience the way it used to - it has lost it's novelty and scandalous nature. Dracula is a lot creepier, deals in myth and legend, the kind of things that people are afraid of late at night.
Dracula is very similar to the other novels we have read. IT has the theme of isolation. Also a deformed appearance in the way he looks like a corpse. The differences are that Dracula is functional being, without childlike attitudes. Also he morphs into a bat as where the other monsters stay like they are.
Dracula is much like the books Jekyll & Hyde and Frankenstein in that the creature who is focused on in the novel is one that exemplifies some set of grotesque features that give the other characters in the story some reason to fear it. Whether its the extremely sharp teeth, the physical deformities or just downright ugliness, each monster, villain and freak in the three stories portrays its own unique aspect of horror. What sets Dracula apart from the rest of these is how Dracula himself (itself?) was spawned. Unlike Victor Frankenstein's monster and Jekyll's alter ego, Hyde which were consciously created, Dracula's origins are not really known, adding to the mystery and creepiness.
This novel compares and contrasts to the other two novels in major ways. First, it follows the monsters, villains, and freaks format. I feel like this villain is definately the most developed. The other two monsters were either immature or forced to adapt over time. With this novel the antagonist is already at the height of his power, and ready to use it. Also, this is the first villain that has an appeal. The other freaks caused other people to be very frightened, but Dracula has something about him that people can't help but feel attracted towards. This is probably the biggest difference in the three monsters. Something that is similar between the three of them is that they are all murderers. They have all killed innocent people or children, making them all equally evil.
Dracula, similar to the other novels we've read, is a monster/freak/villain character. Also similarly, his appearance is deformed and he looks scary, not fitting into the norm, as seen with Hyde and the monster. However, Hyde and the monster were the result of scientific experiments, gone bad. I think there is more sympathy with those two characters than there is with Dracula as he is just frightening and evil. Also, Dracula is a disease, whereas the other monsters were not at all.
Agreeing with a couple of comments above, Dracula is different because the monster is not created by science, and the novel doesn't deal with science as much in general. Also, the monster-like characters in this novel are different; they are more intense and obvious than previous stories weve read. It is the same because like Jekyll and Hyde, Hyde tries to hide his differences and monster-like features, as well as Dracula tries to do at the beginning of the novel. They are the same because they both deal with crazy characters and a character that is scared for his life.
Dracula, along with the other novels and films deal with a monster, villain, or freak terrorizing the public. All three deal with a supernatural force. In Frankenstein, there was the scientific experiment that led to the creation of a murderous, yet misunderstood monster. In J/H, another scientific experiment dealing with duality of human nature ended with a murderous human terrorizing people. Dracula however is not created by science, he is more of a disease. There is something appealing about Dracula that people cannot resist following. They all deal with isolation.
Dracula is different because the story is collected by several different characters that each give their different views. Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were both told by a third person party. We never actually hear anything from the monsters they are describing. Dracula is different from the other two because he wasn't a son of science. Dracula and the monster from Frankenstein are similar because their violence had a purpose. Frankenstein's monster wanted to kill it's creator and Dracula wants to create a new race of vampires. Hyde, however, just does whatever he gets the impulse to do.
Dracula is similar to other novels we've read because it deals with a similar plotline: there is a somewhat supernatural monster and the small few who know of his existence, a need to protect someone from the monster, and a culminating battle between good and evil at the end. Dracula is different though, partially because he is based on pre-written legend, so his characteristics aren't really left up to authorial interpretation. Also, he is the first non-created monster that we have read about; both Hyde and Frankenstein were products of human experimentation. The existence of Dracula suggests a new theme that we haven't before encountered: the idea that monsters, freaks, and villains are created by nature, or a divine source - because, from all the given evidence, there is no one human who "created" the first vampire.
Post a Comment