Final Proposal!!

For my final project, I was leaning towards doing a creative project, and possibly a collage or photography or portrait type project, where I would be comparing the various depictions of vampires from Dracula and Interview with the Vampire that we’ve discussed in class. I plan on comparing and contrasting the depictions of how vampires look and act, thus defining the differences between the “Old” and “New” vampires. My goal in this project is to show the transition and transformation of the idea and visual picture of what a vampire looks like, and how all the characteristics have changed over the years and stories written about these creatures.

To start this project, I would review each book’s/author’s description of their main vampires: namely, Count Dracula within Dracula and Louis of Pointe du Lac in Interview. After organizing that evidence, I would attempt, in my own interpretation, to put together a visual depiction of what the vampires would look like. Probably using posterboard, and various pictures (whether cut out of magazines or printed off my computer), I could organize these pictures to symbolize what these characters could look like, and how they differ. I would explore why the authors created the characters to look this way, and what the importance could be of the metamorphosis.

Oftentimes, the society around a person at a certain time period has a large impact on what a person dresses and acts like; the big question I’d like to answer, also, is are vampires products of their social environment and history? Or are they timeless beings that are idealistic and historically significant? Within Dracula, we can see that he does not try to be a human, or redeem himself in any way, however, we do not see him as a “young vampire,” thus are unable to make judgments about what he tried to do early on in his “vampire life.” Louis of Point du Lac, on the other hand, gives us his full story firsthand, and implores upon us that he has tried to humanize himself and truly find out if he is damned, and if his soul is intact or completely shrunken and destroyed. By seeing Louis’ process through life as a vampire, we get a more modern picture of what it “was like” for him, and the challenges he had to go through, especially with certain surroundings impacting his life. Dracula, as well, is an interesting character, as, after awhile, he seems to completely control all around him, acting very confident and poised at all times with the other characters. The differences between these two vampires can shed light onto the time period they are both portrayed within, and how that time period affected the vampires themselves, as well as other people living at the time the stories were released.

I am very interested in where my project will lead me, and what else I can learn about the cyclical creation of vampires throughout history, as well as what various authors view most important in creating their personalities, physical characteristics, wants, and how they are socially impacted by people and customs of their time.

Interview With The Vampire

I definitely see major differences between how vampires are portrayed within Interview with The Vampire compared to Dracula... While in Dracula, we see the Count as a very poised, confident, aristocratic type of vampire, very old and seemingly knowledgeable about parts of the world and kinds of people, etc., in Interview, we see a very different portrayal of vampires. Louis is a very thought-provoking character, as he stays very much in touch with his "human nature" even after he becomes a vampire. It's quite interesting that he does this, as before he turned into a vampire, he describes himself as: "I drank all the time and was at home as little as possible. I lived like a man who wanted to die but who had no courage to do it himself... I backed out of two dues more from apathy than cowardice and truly wished to be murdered..." (11). While Count Dracula is very alluring in a Victorian sense, that he has a mansion, is intelligent, and is sometimes even portrayed as "sexy," Louis and the other vampires in Interview are portrayed in another light. One of the first things I noticed was that they never seem to get older, obviously I know they're immortal, but Louis describes the faces of vampires as soft and wrinkle-free sometimes. It's interesting that they can contain their human characteristics they had in life within their un-dead bodies as vampires.

Also, Count Dracula is viewed completely as a monster, with little or no friends, and many are actually afraid of him, and cower by the sight of him. On the contrary, vampires like Louis, Lestat, and Claudia seem to lure humans in because of their intense beauty and their seemingly sensual personalities. These attributes allow us to almost not hate them as much; Louise seems to have feelings, unlike many other vampires, that humans share, and this causes him much trouble throughout the entirety of the book. On pages 85 and 86, for example, when Lestat is toying with some prostitutes' lives, drinking their blood, scaring them, and leaving them to die, Louis demands he stop, as he cannot stand to be in the room while he did this to human women. Lestat tells him, "You can stand it!... You're a vampire the same as I am!" This is a very bold statement, as we come to find that Louis is very UNLIKE all of the vampires we see in this incredibly enticing novel.

Dr. Seward's Significance

I think Dr. Seward is one of the most interesting characters in the novel, as his stories and journal entries give us much insight into the vampire world, without even realizing it at first. His main patient, Renfield, has a strong connection to Count Dracula, and exhibits vampire-like qualities throughout his stay at the insane asylum. It is interesting how the two vampires are described, as Renfield and Dracula seem very different from one another, one completely disgusting and desperate for his master, always mumbling to he who obviously cannot hear him (96), and the other seriously independent, poised, and intelligent about what his life consists of. By placing Renfield in the insane asylum, we are able to see what could happen to a "free-spirited" vampire when they are confined, especially separated from human blood they need as sustenance. Renfield consumes living creatures, such as flies, spiders, and sparrows, and Seward classifies him as a "zoophagous"- or a "life-eating" maniac, and is described as wanting to "absorb as many lives as he can" (71). This fiendish desire tells us much about the true nature of vampires, but how it can be stifled and contorted if the vampire is imprisoned and unable to get human blood. Dr. Seward's role of reporting what happens with Renfield is a crucial one, especially since he is within the confines of an insane asylum, and seems to have a pretty clear divide between himself and his patients: Seward sees life very scientifically, in black and white. His desire to classify Renfield immediately after he arrives tells us that even if Seward doesn't understand something, he needs to give it a scientific name in order for it to make any sense in his mind.

It is also interesting/ ironic that Lucy does not choose Seward as her husband, and that, if she had, he possibly could have helped her more because he is a scientist, and could have seen connections between what was happening to her and what he observed with Renfield...... Finally, Arthur Holmwood has to write to Dr. Seward asking him to examine Lucy (104).