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.'"

Twilight vs. Harry Potter: Part Two

Don't you love it when something forces you to have such a strong opinion, and you can't help but think about it all the time? Whenever anyone preaches the opposite of one of my relentless views I always feel sorry that they are so stupid, blind and wrong. But not everything makes me feel so protective of my reasoning and logic, and although most of the subjects I am persistent on are sometimes dark or hateful, I still love feeling so unyielding towards it. I love to debate and I love to rant (obviously), so I love it when I find something that satisfies my hate in every single way and makes me positive that every negative point I have against it are justified. One of these things is the series called Twilight. I read those four published atrocities, and have since witnessed the rise in it's popularity, but it seemed like I was the only one left confused. Have these people ever read Jane Austen? Charles Dickens? Margaret Atwood? Mark Twain? Can they not see what a disgrace Twilight is to the creative stages literature has been through? That is the difference between Twilight and Harry Potter: good writing.

Only an idiot could read Twilight and love it. Stephen King, who's published over 50 books and has received countless awards for his work, had this to say of the comparison between J.K. Rowling and Stinky Mormon, "The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." And it is so true. The plot has so much potential, but miraculously seems to flop in every single way. Oh VAMPIRES? Cool! But they're vegetarian, they sparkle and they go to a regular high school...oh. BUT WAIT! Enemy vampires!!!!??!! Oh, but when they come they are either drawn off by a force field, or Bella just faints and when she wakes up, all gone! So a regular girl falls in love with a vampire??? AWESOME!!! Oh...the girl is totally dependent and has no personality, just like all the other characters due to the stupid author who can't creative write for shit and therefore doesn't know how to develop characters at all. Damn. Twilight is SUCH a disappointment in ALL ways. (P.S. You know a book is shit when it doesn't challenge your vocabulary ONCE or even a little bit. This is a person who majored in the English language? I DON'T THINK SO! (oh, wait...she studied in the States. Right.))

In Harry Potter, it's funny if you reread them from the beginning and see how young Harry and pals acted, and how much they have developed and matured with each year. In Twilight, it doesn't matter how much Bella ends up being with the Cullen family, after reading four books I still couldn't tell you any key points to any of their personalities. Esme? The mom? And she talks. Carlisle? I think he was supposed to be some badass that used to be in the Volturi, but I couldn't tell you any of his traits if you pointed a gun at my face. He's a doctor, but he's a vampire. That's as deep as that goes, so I guess you can assume he's nice? Emmett? He makes a joke or two sometimes. Favorite things? Hobbies? General air and presence? NO IDEA! Rosalie? Nope. Alice? Annoying because she's supposed to have a personality but when you're a loser all your life its hard to write a free, happy-go-lucky character if you've never had a friend or a conversation with relatable ways. So, she talks alot to Bella? I need some help, cause I'm starting to realize ALL of them have no personalities and are generally the same concept with minor changes in the words that they say.

Just give me ONE character from Harry Potter, and I can go on about them forever. Okay, here's an example. Ron Weasley. He's poor, comes from a big, old wizarding family. He has 6 other siblings and because of that often feels overlooked. He's also best friends with Harry, so I guess that doesn't really help, given Harry's the most famous wizard of modern times. He hates spiders, he loves Quidditch and his favorite team is The Chudley Cannons. He had a pet rat which was a hand me down from his brother Percy. He's jealous, sometimes obnoxious and big mouthed. He's witty but quick tempered. Hes' also a good brother, since he's protective of Ginny, but also, as I mentioned, jealous and quick to judge. His favorite foods are bacon and sausage. He's got red hair, freckles and a long nose (unlike in the movie). I can name all of his family members, along with his first cousins, grandparents and distant cousins, but just saying that proves enough. He wants to be an Auror when he grows up, like Harry, but if he had never met Harry and had to have all those magical adventures, I think he'd like to be a pro Quidditch player (Seeker).

Bella. She used to live in Tuscan with her mom, but left cause her mom was moving with her boyfriend. She doesn't like to exercise, respect her dad or make any friends. She likes guys who are white and good looking. She is ready to drop everything in her life after realizing a hot guy likes her after....a week? If Edward leaves she can go 3 months doing nothing at all. She wants to be a vampire because Edward is, and then they can be together forever! Her favorite hobbies are trying to convince Edward to have sex with her. In her spare time she likes to take care of her baby. She dislikes any mention of anything relatively considered intimate. I do not know if she has any cousins, grandparents or an ounce of personality. If you do, please inform me, for I haven't read Twilight as much as Harry Potter, strictly because I find it cruel and unusual punishment to put myself through that again.

Twilight pales in comparison to Harry Potter in every way. Twilight is also a fantasy novel, but everything to it's settings, it's rules of Vampirism and all it's characters are underdeveloped and even contradicting at times. So, the general quality of the book is far less than Harry Potter, and almost every other published novel for that matter. The difference between Harry Potter readers and Twilight readers is intelligence. Because Twilight was written by a STUPID person, it appeals to people with stupidity of equal or greater quantity. (Which, unfortunately, far surpasses the amount of intelligent people in the world, which is why a book as poorly written as Twilight can get so big. It's also why a person like George W. Bush can be elected president.)
The reason I name these articles Twilight vs. Harry Potter, and not Harry Potter vs. Twilight, is because Harry Potter is on such a higher level than Twilight, that it needs not be compared with Twilight, but it is Twilight that has to be compared to it.

P.s. Just incase you read this and think I'm another Twilight hater just trying to push Harry Potter, it's not true. I went into the series expecting good things, and was incredibly dissapointed. I read all the time and have read lots of classics as well as modern novels. I've never read anything as badly written as Twilight, and I've read HUNDREDS of novels.