Would Twilight make Bram Stoker spin in his grave?*

 

 

imageBram Stoker is in my opinion one of the most overlooked authors in fiction. In life, he was rarely recognized as creating an icon. Even as recently as 15 years ago, tours of Dublin failed to mention him.

In life he was overshadowed by his idol, actor Henry Irving, who he was managed, and who is supposedly inspiration for his best known character.

Even when he died he was overshadowed as he died a few days after the Titanic sunk, and therefore it did not feature heavily in the press.

While none of his other books lived up to the furore that Dracula created, no one can take away the influence it has had, and more importantly continues to have.

The Twilight Series of books are without doubt the biggest things in children’s fiction since Harry Potter.

Even with critics such as Stephen King who says “I respect Stephanie Meyer but she can’t write worth a damn”, she is selling millions of copies of her books.

Meyer’s portrayal of Vampires, as sparkly “dumbed down” versions of Stokers creation have reinvigorated a younger generation’s interest in the un-dead bloodsuckers.

It’s hard to find many Young Adult fictions that do not feature a vampire. My daughters loved the Twilight series, but even they are getting fed up trying to find books that aren’t jumping on the vampire bandwagon (hanging onto Dracula’s cape?)

But the question must be asked…..

Would Bram Stoker, creator of the most influential (and scary) Horror character in history, be spinning in his grave* with the plethora of Young adult fiction seemingly obsessed with politically correct Vampires?

 

 

* Stoker actually chose to be cremated, so didn’t have a coffin. But Would Stoker turn in his Urn didn’t sound like a good title

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under General

3 responses to “Would Twilight make Bram Stoker spin in his grave?*

  1. As someone who has read both Twilight and Dracula, I would say that yes, Bram Stoker would certainly be turning in his grave (or urn) at the thought of it. Stoker created a wonderful character that was both terrifying and alluring at the same time, whereas Meyer created a flat, pointless, two-dimensional friendly “monster”. I’m all for creative licence, but Meyer failed to actually bring anything interesting to the genre.

  2. While I can’t say that I’m a fan of Stoker’s Dracula (I read it just recently and found it, actually kind of boring) there is no denying that he created a monster and character that would go on to become one of THE greatest horror/pop-culture icons. I think that if he were to see what the vampire has become he would certainly be a little disturbed. Stoker’s Dracula is a monster, pure and simple, and this is reiterated several times in the text. Meyer’s vampire, however, is a creature we are supposed to find sympathy in and even hope to heal (at least, that’s what I get from what I know of Twilight, I have not actually READ those books, so).

    However, I also think he would be curious to see the how and why a monster of such horror and scope has been shaped and reformed into the pitiable eternal-teen vamp of Twilight.

  3. Megan

    I think there’s a chance Stoker would not have been happy to see vampires become politically correct. After all, Dracula was very un-PC for his time in terms of horror, sex and women’s stance in society. To have seen a character inspire the creation of other horror characters, and then turn into a sensitive, nice one likely would have baffled Stoker.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s