Dracula

So, I just finished Dracula after MONTHS of "reading" it. I thought I'd never do it! I am so relieved that I finished it, but I wasn't quite satisfied by the ending. Doesn't that suck; when a book spends its entirety on building up to an inevitable, huge climax, but in the end they resolve the whole issue in about two sentences? I had even grown tired of the book because the whole detective, plan making stage was too long! Maybe because it started off so well, but then went backwards and slow until the end... - but I can't say it wasn't a good read. Just not effortless.

At the beginning it's exactly what you want it to be when you're reading a book about a vampire. The main character is on his way to Transylvania, all the villagers he passes in his carriage are praying and making cross symbols the closer he gets to the Count's castle, the works! They even throw in the name Count Dracula so early and casually that you're seized with expectation. This guy's gonna be bad-ass, right?? So, he gets there, and by he, I mean Jonathan Harker is his name, and the Count offers him dinner but the Count won't eat with him, and the Count disappears throughout the whole day. The whole book is in diary accounts of various people, so it's Jonathan's account of the whole thing, and the whole time he's being all sceptical, pointing out all these known vampire-like things. So reading it I was like, "Run boy! He a vampire, can't you see that!", and with every oddity he detected I yearned for the him guess at his true identity in the next sentence. Then the most exciting part happened. For me. Jonathan was looking out at the mountains from a window when he sees a lower level window and notices the Count inside it. Since the Count is always mysterious and creepy to Jon already, he spies on him and sees the Count go to the window and open it. Then, the Count climbs out the window and scurries down the stone wall and into a hole, like a lizard. I thought it was so cool cause I knew in the end they were gonna go after him and he would then display more awesome things that vampires do and maybe even make vampires cool again for me. (Just kidding, Dracula doesn't deserve to get compared to some(one) of the heinous adaptations.)

Things I learned about vampires:
1. Once they get bitten, they don't automatically become a vampire. They actually only become a vampire once they die, and the process of dying is only fast if the vampire repeatedly comes back to his victim, draining the victim's blood again and again. If they're bitten just once, they may not ever become a vampire, but will just have some vague, vampire like symptoms like sharp canine teeth, pale skin and allergies to all things holy.

2. I learned that vampires can control the wolves! I guess that's what the whole Vampires vs. Lycans thing was about. Slavery! It also says he can control the "meaner" things, like the rat, the owl (that's what it says!), the bat, the moth, the fox and the wolves.

3. Vampires can turn into mist and develop mist around them and manipulate it however they choose. And they can turn into bats, but I already knew that. They can control all weather, like thunder, rain, wind. If a vampire is ever hiding on your boat, you should become suspicious if your way is perfectly smooth and storm-free.

4. My sister was telling me I should watch True Blood, and I watched the first few episodes, and I noticed the vampire in it said that vampires couldn't enter the home of a mortal unless they're formally invited inside. But in the book, Dracula had come in to their house and bitten their ladies, numerous times. But, if you've read the story, when Dracula came into the house, he had been communicating to the lunatic downstairs! So I think he was bribing him with salvation and all that, to get him to enter the building when it suited him! So I guess vampires can't appear at the end of your bed in the night unless you've told them to be there. (May not apply if vampire is a stalker and is adamant about watching the mortal sleep.)

5. I learned that Vampires retain a trait of how they were when they were bitten. For example, one of the girls got bitten while she was daydreaming, so when she was a vampire she did it all subconsciously, and was never an alert intelligent vampire. But the Count must have been bitten on a clear mind for he was very smart and perceptive, but that was because he was very old. When you turn into a vampire, you are basically born again, and you are a simple minded vampire baby. But the older you are, the more consciousness you grow, but it's never to the amount as a regular person. You will still do things repetitively, almost zombie-like.

Things I didn't like about the book:
Well, I don't know if I can call it slow, but it was a slow read for me. I just didn't find that I could read too much of it at one time. Also, it was very religious to the point where it was stupid. Like when they had nothing to say: 'Well, it's in God's hands," or, 'God's Will," I read lots of old books, and obviously back in the day theology-like principles were a lot more relevant but, you could tell this writer was a believer. When the characters would have short entries about the progress of their loved one who was bitten, they'd always just say, "Well it's all up to God," which I understand, but they show hardly any real concern for one another before they leave it all to God. It's just like, "Oh well, it's the way it's supposed to be," meanwhile they're hunting down Dracula because he's an abomination! I thought that was a little hypocritical. I mean, we'll understand if you just say you wanna kill him for killing your fiance, you don't have to bring God into it. I'm sure he never personally told you Dracula wasn't meant to exist, or else why would Dracula be on Earth? For centuries longer than you have?
And the book was extremely sexist. Even though they all loved this woman who got bitten, and they all praised her in their diary entries, it was always in a sexist way! They'll be like, "she is fine, for a woman, because she has the brain of a man," And that's only because she has more interests than cooking and sewing! She's still as girlie as they come! And whenever they talked about hunting Dracula, they'd say they can't tell her details because she is a woman and she hasn't the nerves to take it. Even she is like, oh take me with you, even though I'm just a "poor weak woman." Yeah, I put quotation marks because those are the exact words she uses. And all the men are super macho praising, male chauvinists. So, they're discussing what they'll do when they come across the traveling box the vampire is laying in, and Dr. Van Helsing is saying they have to be careful because if anyone sees, they'll think they're committing a real murder. Here, I have the exact quote: '"I shall not wait for any opportunity," said Quincey. "When I see the box I shall open it and destroy the monster, though there were a thousand men looking on, and if I am to be wiped out for it the next moment!"
"Good boy!" said Dr. Van Helsing. "Brave boy. Quincey is all man, God bless him for it."
Van Helsing was the one who was preaching they DON'T do that, but I guess a good display of manliness can always sway him.

All in all, I'd say it's a must read, but knowing about vampire and having expectations kinda lets you down, so take it with a grain of salt. Oh, and one more neat fact, I learned where the saying, "Don't' cry over spilt milk" came from. Or at least, the way they used to say it in the 1890's. Here's the quote from the book.
"'Oh that we had known it before!' he said, 'for then we might have reached him in time to save poor Lucy. However, "the milk that is spilt cries not out afterwards" as you say. We shall not think of that.'"

Flashing Cameras Click!

Imagine you were getting up and you've realized you're late for work. So you hustle and bustle to get out the door and when you do; there are 10-20 people with cameras all stationed around your car taking pictures of you. And once you fight your way through them and drive away, they get in their cars and follow you. You work a hard eight hours, and come back home exhausted, only to find your front door blocked with a group of people's flashes going off in your face while they scream your name relentlessly over and over. Okay, you're not a celebrity, so this probably isn't a problem for you, but is that even an excuse?

Is it just me or are paparazzi really frightening? When I was in middle school we had a man who was caught in the bushes taking pictures of the students during recess. He was arrested, obviously. But, he wasn't doing anything paparazzi don't do every day. We see videos of people like Lindsay Lohan coming home from a night out, and we say, "OMG! What's that powder stuff coming from her feet?" All I can think is, "OMG! Why the FUCK is someone taking pictures of her at like, 3am, and why the FUCK should I or anyone else care?" I really don't understand this obsession we as a society have towards celebrities. Yes, they are phenomenal liars and entertainers; why should that be so celebrated? I'm pretty sure, back in the day, those were called Jesters.

I mean, if we were to look at it like that, then shouldn't celebrities be beneath us? I mean, their jobs are to entertain us! I should be able to go up to a celebrity and say, "Hey you, make me laugh!" before asking for an autograph. The way we idolize these people is actually sickening. We can convince ourselves that they are prettier, buffer, thinner or fatter that they really are, if it's what it takes for us to treat them like Gods. Who the fuck cares about Katie Holmes!?! What, she had a baby? I see fucking 20 new mothers a day on the subway. Should I be taking pictures of them and their toddlers to post on the internet and comment on their outfits? Should anyone be able to take a picture of anyone they don't know without their permission? Just because they are at a certain point in their career, doesn't make it ok. If I was taking pictures of a woman outside her house, got caught and said, "But she's the CEO of my favorite company!" do you think that's ok?
How come as soon as someone gets famous, we all take it upon ourselves to criticize them? Are they losing weight? Are they gay? Do they love chicken more than fish? Umm, do you not remember who these people were in high school?? We never showed any interest in the Drama Club kids! Is that not exactly what actors do? Arn't 95% of the guys in Drama Club gay? Why do we seem to think the Brad Pitt looking metrosexual celebrity is straight and obviously wants to be with you after you tell him you've watched his movie 25 times a month? Pathetic.

There are SO many people worth spending attention to in this world, who may actually do something other than memorize lines. Scientists, activists even just people suffering from every day problems. Maybe if people took more time to learn and talk to people they can relate to, we wouldn't have countries that can kill they own citizens or deprive them of health care. I think it's time we focus on the courses of our own lives in our own society instead of watching people get paid to talk about whether or not a star got plastic surgery. WHO CARES???? We only live once, and sorry to break it to you, but the world we live in now is FAR from perfect. In fact, we might as well be destroying ourselves. How will life be for our children, or our grandchildren? Wouldn't you rather them be working towards a better future than sitting at home watching Extra while reading Us magazine? Sure, we all need to be entertained, and thinking of the woes of the world all the time is undesirable, but come on! Take that time to learn a new skill, or read a book or just think! There's no way that one day Britney Spears will one day say a statement that solves the all the problems of the world. These people aren't even inspiring! I love movies just as much as the next, but all this Star Watching shit is a huge waste of time. Don't do it. Life is full of so much! Why waste it on a pretty face?

A Question of Freedom

This is a letter submitted by Ms. Bell to a local paper:

A head scarf should pose no threat to anyone. Those who force women to wear it are those who should be punished, not the woman who wear the hijab as a part of their faith. I agree that everyone should have their face visible government ID and such, but when simply going for a walk, there should be no restrictions on what anyone can wear. If one law abolishes the viel, that is only the beginning of the invasion of human rights. This is not only a response to the new French law, but also a message to those who wish to see this law imposed in Canada. I am Canadian. I was born in Ottawa and was brought up in Canadian culture. I am a Muslim convert (me:!!!!!WHY!!!???) and, as such, I see both sides of the argument. I wear the hijab proudly as a symbol of my faith. Many people see the viel as a way to control women. They argue that we live in a modern society where women are free. That is true and for that I am grateful, but if we force woman to take off their hijab or niqab (me: or burka!), are we not as bad as those who force it upon them?

So that's the letter I came across this morning. Do you agree? Here are some reasons why I don't.
Okay, I understand her whole "freedom of choice" argument, and I agree that everyone should be allowed to wear what they want outside the workplace or government office, but I don't think it's the actual head scarf that is being examined; it's the message. Here's a scenario. A man is walking down the street in a gray T-shirt. Totally fine. But the T-shirt says, "All females are bitches." Then I don't really think it's okay. He's not breaking the law or anything, but a lot of people would be offended enough to want to make him take that shirt off and never wear it again.

Wearing scarfs on your head isn't only a Muslim thing, and has never been a problem. We don't give the old lady with a scarf to keep her curls in a stink eye because she's covering her hair. It is simply an issue of morals and equality. Maybe if we didn't know that if a Muslim woman is caught without her head dress on she can legally be stoned to death or shot, then we might not have such an opinion about it. The swastika was a very popular and used symbol, but put it up today and what is the first thing you'll think of?

Personally, I disagree with any kind of choice to follow any kind of religion at all, but I understand that others can't seem to live their own lives without a Karan or Bible, so it's impossible for someone like me to be like, "Forget about it, religion is stupid and hypocritical anyway!" and expect everyone to go along. The hijab is a symbol of their religion, and many Muslim woman would argue that they wear it for God, not their husbands! (But they do like to avoid the inevitable beating they'll get sans head gear.) But, and this was VERY recently, a teenage girl was MURDERED by her brother and father for not wanting to wear the hijab anymore in Toronto. So, no longer is this a question of choice, but of immense and dangerous pressure being put on the females of this religion. So, as much as we'd all love to think the woman in the burka walking down the street isn't living in constant fear from the men of her family, there's a much bigger chance that he is compared to a woman in a sundress. The burka and the hijab will never be seen to us as something harmless as long as we're educated on it's influence. And personally, I find it just as offense, if not more, than an "Every woman is a bitch" shirt.