Abby VS Dracula

[DavidZahir]

This came up in a conversation so I thought to expand on the idea here.

First of all, some premises. Abby is clearly a vampire who has only appeared on film, although her basis remain Eli in Lindqvist's novel. As such, I'm only comparing Abby to filmed versions of Dracula. Primarily anyway. Just to be clear, here are the major film versions of Bram Stoker's novel:
Nosferatu
Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi
Spanish Dracula (1931) made at the same time starring Carlos Villar
Horror of Dracula (1958), the first of the Hammer Dracula films
Tales of Mystery & Imagination: Dracula (1968) first BBC version, starring Denholm Elliott
Dracula (1972) a made-for-tv film with Jack Palance
Dracula (1978) based on the stage play with Frank Langella
Count Dracula (1979) the most faithful version, from the BBC starring Louis Jourdain
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) with Gary Oldman
Dracula (2006) the third BBC effort with Mark Warren

In terms of powers and limitations the two seem similar in many ways. Both can shape-shift (although for example Christopher Lee's Dracula lacked that ability--mostly due to budget). Both need to an invitation to enter a private dwelling. Each needs blood to survive (although Langella's Count evidently needs to feed every night). Most share with Abby a fatal reaction to sunlight (although this is not present in the book at all). All can spread their condition via the bite, although by far Abby seems the most 'contagious'.

Differences? Well, gender for one thing. For another, Dracula is a grown man, a medieval warlord while Abby was and is a child. Along with this is the fact that Dracula as imagined particularly in films is a seducer. His bite is orgasmic, addictive as well as painful. Abby has her seductive, flirtatious side but that is in no way linked to her hunting. The Count from Transylvania fears religious symbols--Abby doesn't and actually seems to almost function as a religious symbol for Owen, replacing his mother's image of Jesus.

But maybe here we come to the greatest point of similarity and difference between Dracula and Eli--comparing Renfield with Thomas and Owen.

No surprise to any writer that many adaptations of Dracula expand Renfield's role. Often he's more or less given some of Jonathan Harker's plot in visiting Castle Dracula. In one version the opposite happens--Harker ends up in the asylum, a madman under Dracula's thrall. At least twice Renfield even accompanies his master on board the doomed schooner Demeter. Stoker may have created Renfield, but he didn't seem to quite realize what kind of story-telling gold he'd unearthed from his own mind--or perhaps couldn't figure out what to do with this being given his own Victorian sensibilities. Instead he focuses on the relatively bland, almost cookie-cutter middle class heroes like Harker and Seward and Quincey. A shame really. Renfield is to Dracula what Gollum is to Lord of the Rings! Or could have been...

Look now at Lindqvist's 'take' on this kind of relationship, especially as interpreted by Matt Reeves. This vampire--Abby--uses her seductive wiles (conscious or not) to win the loyalty of a companion. By comparison this is a much healthier, kinder, even humane way of going about things. Poor Renfield is at best a mental patient taken terrible advantage of, someone who literally cannot make decisions for himself. At worst he's a rape victim, enslaved and terrified of his master, with one of the worst cases of Stockholm Syndrome one can imagine. Neither Thomas nor Owen fit that mold. Too young they may have been to make such a world-shaking choice as they did, yet at heart they were forging a relationship with someone fundamentally their own age (in many ways). We don't know the circumstances of Thomas' recruitment, save its relative time period and what Thomas looked like at about that time (interestingly--at least to me--he was smaller and frailer that Owen). But we do see its end--with the bitterness, the odd moments of tenderness, the mutual loyalty and loneliness, the resentments of each other as they grew apart. More than one person here has compared that to a marriage, which seems apt. Likewise Owen is not offered grist for his own bizarre obsessions (rats and death's head moths to consume for Renfield) but basic human needs--friendship, company, smiles and listening. A kiss. A touch.

But then, Abby is no more a terrifying warlord than Dracula is a violated little girl.

[Petris]

Nosferatu is pure greatness!

[sauvin]

DavidZahir is being kind enough to take a stab at comparing Abby's brand of vampirism to Dracula's; I requested he do this because he apparently has extensive background in recent popular vampire fiction and because he, unlike me, can both think and write. I'd tried unsuccessfully to do something similar in the thread "Opposite to Archetype" (or somesuch), and the thrust was to understand what a vampire is to us, why they're so popular, why they're so long-lived in our memories and why they can sometimes be so compelling. Comparing Dracula's brand (the "Draculean" vampire) to Eli's (the "Eliform" vampire) differentially might yield some clues either to the general vampiric appeal, or to the nature of our Infection, or both.

His initial approach to it is rather interesting, and one I'd initially rejected because I'm a tunnel-visioned and unimaginatively puristic dullard: if it's a comparison to anything but the Archetype (Lugosi's seminal Dracula in film, that is), it has no value. DavidZahir's comments open an avenue to exploring what the "evolving" image of the original Dracula might mean in terms of changing mores, socioeconomic climes, the vagaries of politics and popular religion and the like.

[jetboy]

This came up in a conversation so I thought to expand on the idea here.

First of all, some premises. Abby is clearly a vampire who has only appeared on film, although her basis remain Eli in Lindqvist's novel. As such, I'm only comparing Abby to filmed versions of Dracula. Primarily anyway. Just to be clear, here are the major film versions of Bram Stoker's novel:
Nosferatu
Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi
Spanish Dracula (1931) made at the same time starring Carlos Villar
Horror of Dracula (1958), the first of the Hammer Dracula films
Tales of Mystery & Imagination: Dracula (1968) first BBC version, starring Denholm Elliott
Dracula (1972) a made-for-tv film with Jack Palance
Dracula (1978) based on the stage play with Frank Langella
Count Dracula (1979) the most faithful version, from the BBC starring Louis Jourdain
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) with Gary Oldman
Dracula (2006) the third BBC effort with Mark Warren

In terms of powers and limitations the two seem similar in many ways. Both can shape-shift (although for example Christopher Lee's Dracula lacked that ability--mostly due to budget). Both need to an invitation to enter a private dwelling. Each needs blood to survive (although Langella's Count evidently needs to feed every night). Most share with Abby a fatal reaction to sunlight (although this is not present in the book at all). All can spread their condition via the bite, although by far Abby seems the most 'contagious'.

Differences? Well, gender for one thing. For another, Dracula is a grown man, a medieval warlord while Abby was and is a child. Along with this is the fact that Dracula as imagined particularly in films is a seducer. His bite is orgasmic, addictive as well as painful. Abby has her seductive, flirtatious side but that is in no way linked to her hunting. The Count from Transylvania fears religious symbols--Abby doesn't and actually seems to almost function as a religious symbol for Owen, replacing his mother's image of Jesus.

But maybe here we come to the greatest point of similarity and difference between Dracula and Eli--comparing Renfield with Thomas and Owen.

No surprise to any writer that many adaptations of Dracula expand Renfield's role. Often he's more or less given some of Jonathan Harker's plot in visiting Castle Dracula. In one version the opposite happens--Harker ends up in the asylum, a madman under Dracula's thrall. At least twice Renfield even accompanies his master on board the doomed schooner Demeter. Stoker may have created Renfield, but he didn't seem to quite realize what kind of story-telling gold he'd unearthed from his own mind--or perhaps couldn't figure out what to do with this being given his own Victorian sensibilities. Instead he focuses on the relatively bland, almost cookie-cutter middle class heroes like Harker and Seward and Quincey. A shame really. Renfield is to Dracula what Gollum is to Lord of the Rings! Or could have been...

Look now at Lindqvist's 'take' on this kind of relationship, especially as interpreted by Matt Reeves. This vampire--Abby--uses her seductive wiles (conscious or not) to win the loyalty of a companion. By comparison this is a much healthier, kinder, even humane way of going about things. Poor Renfield is at best a mental patient taken terrible advantage of, someone who literally cannot make decisions for himself. At worst he's a rape victim, enslaved and terrified of his master, with one of the worst cases of Stockholm Syndrome one can imagine. Neither Thomas nor Owen fit that mold. Too young they may have been to make such a world-shaking choice as they did, yet at heart they were forging a relationship with someone fundamentally their own age (in many ways). We don't know the circumstances of Thomas' recruitment, save its relative time period and what Thomas looked like at about that time (interestingly--at least to me--he was smaller and frailer that Owen). But we do see its end--with the bitterness, the odd moments of tenderness, the mutual loyalty and loneliness, the resentments of each other as they grew apart. More than one person here has compared that to a marriage, which seems apt. Likewise Owen is not offered grist for his own bizarre obsessions (rats and death's head moths to consume for Renfield) but basic human needs--friendship, company, smiles and listening. A kiss. A touch.

But then, Abby is no more a terrifying warlord than Dracula is a violated little girl.

I have thought that it was Dracula that turned Eli in the first place.

[PeteMork]

…Stoker may have created Renfield, but he didn't seem to quite realize what kind of story-telling gold he'd unearthed from his own mind--or perhaps couldn't figure out what to do with this being given his own Victorian sensibilities. Instead he focuses on the relatively bland, almost cookie-cutter middle class heroes like Harker and Seward and Quincey. A shame really. Renfield is to Dracula what Gollum is to Lord of the Rings! Or could have been...

What an interesting take on Renfeld! And I do think it gives us a very different way to look at the evolution of the Abby-Owen relationship compared to even these most recent Vampire epics, which tend to stay within the mindless good vs. evil constraints of popular vampirism. Perhaps, in a worse-case scenario, Owen IS in awe of Abby’s strength and power, and for that reason alone, fled Los Alamos with her. His choices certainly seemed more limited than Oskar’s were, making this a more realistic path for him than for Oskar. In a darker future for them, I could easily imagine his obsession with her becoming very Gollum-like; more like Hakan in the book then like Thomas in the film, an even darker future for him than in Sauvin’s “Oskar at 40.” One important difference between these old vampire epics and LMI, is, IMO, that we are shown the evolution of Owen’s thinking before the train ride, making his potential descent into the world of Gollum equally believable, rather than merely a Victorian stereotype.

[DavidZahir]

Thank you!

But the danger is to assume the parallels that do exist eclipse the differences--and they are, IMHO, much greater. In fact, when you look at Renfield and Dracula one should take away a much greater appreciation of how positive a relationship Abby and Thomas enjoyed, even at the end. Not least in seeing how they ended. Dracula's slave was murdered by him for making a mistake. Thomas willingly sacrificed himself for someone who showed him him tenderness (try to imagine the Transylvanian Count doing any such thing for his bug-eating minion).