Friday 24 July 2009

Frankenstien vs Dracula

Frankenstien as a story has more going for it. I had a raging argument with someone earlier this year: he thought the whole thing was a delusion, there was no monster, it was a prototype Jekyll and Hyde.

My thoughts seem to be more of the line that, if you create an ungodly creation, then run away from it, and it gets all its morality teachings from Paradise Lost, and then kills a few folk, then you, as God and dad, should shoulder a sizeable brunt of the blame.

The arguement raged onwards for months, but no blood was shed.


Whereas Dracula is just about sex. Just like Carmilla. And unlike Le Fanu, Stoker was a bit of a clumsy hack. He has decent ideas ruined by a overclunky style.

Whereas Shelleys is merely a product of her time as such is Austen, but fits within both the satirical oversight of Byron and Percy, and the maternal influences of Wolstencraft in her writing.

No comments: