Fahrenheit 451 and 1984

The frightening thing about George Orwell's 1984 is how extreme it is, but the frightening thing about Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is how possible it is!

In 1984, the party forcefully took control of the population and forcefully kept it. Orwell apparently had Russia in mind when he wrote the book, but today, North Korea is the only example of such a dystopia. The rest have moved away from communist totalitarianism and I don't know how much longer North Korea will last.
  
In contrast, the people of 451 were not forced into dystopia. The did it to themselves. Over time they gave up literature, critical thinking, and everything else that might cause complicated or unhappy thoughts. To mindlessly occupy themselves they turned towards mass culture, spectator sports, superficial dramas, and thrill seeking. Once they gave up thinking for themselves they allowed themselves to be manipulated by their government. Schools began teaching kids at successively earlier ages to fall in line with everybody else, filling their heads with useless facts to occupy their brains, and promoting sports and thrill seeking to keep them too busy and too tired for original thinking. Anyone who was different was quickly ostracized--killed if necessary. People's minds became so shallow that life as we know it became meaningless, and it was only in rare, undistracted moments, that someone might notice how empty their lives were.

The first time I read 451 it was just an adventure story with some scattered boring parts. It was about a guy trying to escape a corrupt system. It could have been Harrison Ford in The Fugitive or Will Smith in Enemy of the State or any number of Hollywood escape/action/adventure stories.

The second time I read it, however, I noticed the "boring" parts actually contained some interesting commentary, very relevant to today, which was rather prophetic of Ray Bradbury, who wrote it back in 1950.

By the 3rd time I read it, I finally realized I had it all backwards. The "boring" parts were the meaningful and cerebral parts of the real story, and they were occasionally interrupted by action sequences!

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury predicted political correctness, a dominating sports culture, our obsession with TV dramas and so-called reality shows, and constantly listening to music through ear-buds. He predicted these things will occupy our minds with superficial thoughts and move us, as a population, away from reading and critical thinking. These are very realistic things that are happening today! We're not all the way there yet, but we do seem to be going in that direction. Let's add to these our recent trends of federalizing education, promoting test scores over substance, and so-called social media, viral videos, and video games, which are all done in isolation without real interpersonal contact.

The book also includes an interesting interview at the end where Bradbury says he believes we're not really headed into dystopia ourselves, which is reassuring--but only as long as our schools continue to teach reading and writing at an early age. As long as people can read and write, they can think for themselves, and we're safe from Fahrenheit 451.

But what if some day we do let this happen? We'll enter a new Dark Age, and some day, maybe 2 or 3 centuries later, we'll come out of it. And that won't be the first time, will it?

References
Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451. 50th Anniversary Edition. 1953,1979,1981,1982. Del Rey.
George Orwell. 1984: a novel. Signet. 1949,1990.

Did Dracula Save Jonathan Harker?

In Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), it seems to me that Dracula treated Jonathan Harker special... He did not victimize him, he protected him from harm, and then let him get away. In the end, of course, it was Harker that destroyed him.

Obviously Dracula clung to his undeadness (is there a better word for that?), but as he was destroyed, he showed an expression of relief as his soul was finally freed from the vampire's curse. (Only Mina noticed it) It's kind of like death in general. If the afterlife is so wonderful, why do we cling to the present life?

I doubt Dracula planned ahead so that Harker could be the one to free him. Dracula was a selfish exploiter. While undead he needed Harker to help him buy property in London and learn how to fit in with the English population. Dracula obviously intended to fit in unnoticed and exploit victims from the unsuspecting population.

But why did he let Harker go when he was finished with him? Was he in a hurry to get to London? Was he so selfish that he didn't care to provide for the 3 sister vampires (or brides or whoever they were--the book wasn't clear on that)?

The short story Dracula's Guest was supposedly the deleted first chapter of the book. In it Dracula protects Harker from wolves and other evils after he gets lost in the woods on his way to the castle. Obviously Dracula needed Harker to arrive and bring the deed and teach him about life in England, but again, why did he let Harker get away? Especially after he hit him with a shovel?

I guess Dracula was just in a hurry to get to England and assumed Harker would just die in the wilderness. (Villians always assume that of the heroes, don't they?) But Harker got away, joined Van Helsing, and eventually destroyed Dracula.


Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

This Side of Paradise (1920)

This Side of Paradise (1920) was Fitzgerald's first novel. He took the title from "Tiare Tahiti", a romantic poem by Rupert Brooke. I had never heard of him before, but apparently he was an influential poet at the time. He's mentioned several times throughout the book and apparently helped pave the way towards the sexual liberation of the Roaring Twenties.

Note: "Tiare Tahiti" is about a romantic encounter Brooke had with a native girl in Tahiti. He later left her but found fame writing about sexual liberation. As a father of 2 daughters, it seems to me sexual liberation excites women more than men but also leaves them with more of the consequences!

Anyway, This Side of Paradise concerns the initiation of a young Amory Blaine into adulthood. The first 8 chapters cover his growth from a teenager through college. His background is so much like Fitzgerald's that it's obvious the novel is mostly autobiographical--which makes it very real. The things that Amory goes through are much the same as Fitzgerald went through and very much the same as every young man--and many young women, too, I'm sure--go though in their lives. Most people keep those things private, but Fitzgerald found the courage to share them with the world. And that brought him his first commercial success.

So what did Amory go through? Well compared to Fitzgerald's other novels and short stories, This Side of Paradise, except for some of the romantic parts, seems a bit abstract and tends to ramble. Towards the end, you realize this is very lifelike, because all those abstract and rambling sections are what's going on in Amory's mind. He's trying to figure out his status relative to his peers, which groups or clubs to join, who to be seen with, who he can use, etc. Friends, acquaintances, and lovers come and go. Some people turn out to be the opposite he expected. For a while he joins sports just to get the hero worship he sees athletes enjoying.

Amory eventually reaches a conclusion about himself. The final chapter begins with the climax, ironically at the lowest point in his life. He's on a bank of the Hudson River, friendless, moneyless, godless, and wondering what he's doing with his life, when suddenly he starts walking across New Jersey! During that walk he has flashbacks, meets an old friend's father, gathers his thoughts and emotions, and finally realizes he knows himself.

This story is so much like the stories from the 70's, my teen years, where people set off to find themselves. They're basically the same story.

I have to admit, though, as a literal-minded type, I never quite understood what they meant by finding themselves. Thinking about it now, I suppose it's finding a purpose in life, finding a role or a niche wherein one feels they can do something meaningful and constructive. Amory didn't know he was looking for himself in the first 8 chapters, but that's what he found at the end.

This Side of Paradise comes to an abrupt but hopeful end. Frankly that was a relief since so many stories end tragically, but this is an initiation story. They're supposed to end hopeful, right?

References:
F. Scott Fitzgerald. This Side of Paradise. Scribner's. 1920.
Rupert Brooke. "Tiare Tahiti". 1914. "Tiare Tahiti by Rupert Brooke". About.com European History. web 2012.
"Rupert Brooke". Wikipedia. web 2012.

Fitzgerald Novels (1920-1925)

This Side of Paradise (1920) was Fitzgerald's first novel. For him it was both a commercial success and a personal achievement: Not only did it give him recognition as an author, but it was enough to get Zelda to believe in him and marry him. To me, however, much of the story is rambling and abstract and the plot is mostly devoid of action. Assuming it's autobiographical though, it is remarkable that he had so many of the same experiences and private thoughts I had growing up. While I didn't share my thoughts with the rest of the world, but if he and I had so much in common 50 years apart, maybe a lot of other people do, too, and that's what makes this book so interesting.

The Beautiful and the Damned (1922) is much longer and rambles more, but the plot has more action and the rambling sections are very descriptive of the 1920's lifestyle. In fact I got so involved with the lifestyle, that, at times, I forgot I was reading a story. What's striking about the lifestyle and the characters are that human nature then was the same as it is today! History changes the world, but our lifestyles only change on the surface. Human nature remains the same. It's notable that Twain, Chaucer, Boccaccio, and even the Bible all show us the same thing: human nature is timeless.

The Great Gatsby (1925) is renowned as Fitzgerald's greatest novel and may in fact be the Great American Novel. It is incredibly succinct. Every sentence is meaningful, descriptive, and actively contributes to the plot. It's obvious he consciously incorporated symbols and metaphors throughout and he addresses many subjects Americans can relate to: dreams, ambition, success, failure, and disillusionment. It packs a lot of substance into a small space, it's easy to read and understand, and, as a bonus, is also very descriptive of the lifestyle of the Roaring Twenties.

Tender is the Night (1934) Many people say this is actually Fitzgerald's greatest novel. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.

References:
F. Scott Fitzgerald. This Side of Paradise. Scribner's. 1920.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Beautiful and the Damned. Scribner. 1922.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Great Gatsby. Scribner. 1925.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. Tender is the Night. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1934.

One more Dracula theme: Feminism

I've stated before the 3 major themes of Bram Stoker's Dracula are:

1. Exploitation
2. Knowledge & Beliefs (or science vs. superstition)
   
3. God's will be done

Feminism is a 4th theme, but it's not as clearly defined (at least to me). This theme appears mainly in Mina's and Van Helsing's journals, but also in the other men's journals, but to a lessor extent.

On one hand, the men try to protect the women--supposedly the weaker sex--from physical harm and emotional distress. On the other hand, Mina's reasoning and organizational skills prove invaluable and superior to the men's. When they leave her out of their work, for what they believe is for her own safety, they lose their way and immediately realize they need her back.

Aside from that, Mina frequently mentions her frustration at living in the men's world. It is, after all, the Victorian era and men's and women's places are well defined and distinct. Mina obviously senses some overlap and discrimination. Though she may be a typical woman, she's not the stereotypical weak and helpless female.

I'm not sure if Bram Stoker was actually promoting women's rights or if he was just pointing out some inconsistencies. Nor am I sure how this theme fits in with the more obvious themes. Suffice it to say, feminism is another theme of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897).

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Dracula Movies

So I read Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) and then watched a bunch of movies based on the book.

Most of the movies drop or minimize the literary elements, which leaves just the plot. The characters and geography are often remixed a bit, which takes some getting used to. The best movies are the ones with the best visual and musical effects, a progressive suspense level, and at least some reference, no matter how slight, to something literary.

There are way more movies than I'll ever be able to watch, but here's my comparison so far, in order of release date (all available from Netflix):

Dracula (1931)

IMDB Rating: 7.6. Starring Bela Lugosi, this one is quite good, with the iconic Dracula and many memorable lines, especially "I am ... dah-RAC-ulah". It has a few drawbacks though: The actors are performing in silent movie style with exaggerated expressions and gestures. Renfield is over the top crazy, and Jonathan Harker is annoyingly stupid. Otherwise the lighting is interesting and it's well made, suspenseful, and compact. You don't need to read the book first.

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

IMDB Rating: 6.4. This one has an interesting twist. It picks up with Van Helsing staking Dracula, getting caught by the police, and charged with murder! None of the plot comes from the book, but they do discuss the science vs. superstition theme quite a bit. There are a few unrealistic sequences, but, given the premise, the story is mostly logical, well acted and produced, mixes in some light comedy, and ends with a big rescue scene.

Son of Dracula (1943)

IMDB Rating: 6.1. A scheming heiress tries to gain immortality. The plot has nothing to do with the book except for a page from Harker's diary and ample use of lore--with the addition of destruction by fire and sunlight. The script was given some forethought. Of crosses it says, "It would take too long to explain why they fear it, but they do." Overall it's mysterious but slow until the final 20 minutes, which are suspenseful and exciting.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

IMDB Rating: 7.5. This is the first of several Hammer productions starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. It starts out really good, but gets a bit slow at times. It could be more suspenseful, too, but the music's good and the ending is exciting. The geography is remixed. I think they're in Germany or Austria. The characters are mostly appealing. And you can recognize tidbits from the book, though you don't need to read it first to follow the plot.

The Return of Dracula (1958)

IMDB Rating: 5.3. This is a surprisingly good B&W horror movie where Dracula impersonates a distant relative visiting a trusting family in 1950's America. It has almost nothing to do with the book, but it's quite scary, in an eerily familiar setting, with an excellent score, and very good acting. The suspense builds progressively to a climax and I noticed a few anti-McCarthy remarks as the authorities were investigating the mysterious guest. (The IMDB rating looks too low to me, but it has few votes, probably because it's back & white)

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)

IMDB Rating: 6.3. Starring Christopher Lee...The sets, costumes, and cast are well done and good looking, but Lee's acting is oddly hokey and the plot is weak and confusing. If Dracula were a TV series, this could be an average episode. At least Lee's appearance and costume, including red eyes, are pretty good. He's tall, thin, and menacing. And there are lots of really neat scenes on rooftops, in the wilderness, stone pubs, and several nightmarish views of Dracula driving a horse-drawn hearse, whip in hand, cape in the wind.

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

IMDB Rating: 6.2. I think this Hammer production, yet again starring Christopher Lee, is one of the best Dracula movies. It doesn't have much to do with the book, but it mostly sticks to the lore, the sets and scenery are visually rich, the colors are bright and clear, the picture quality is excellent, the cast is good looking, and the music is perfect. The story is kind of predictable, though, but the atmosphere remains suspenseful. The only drawback, really, is the final scene where things suddenly turn random and illogical (even given the premise), but it's still an enjoyable movie overall.

Count Dracula (1970)

IMDB Rating: 5.7. This Spanish production stars Chistopher Lee and Klaus Kinsky, but it's one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. The camera zooms in and out annoyingly. There are long sequences of people just staring. (That's common in some movies. Does anybody ever get anything from that?) Scenes jump around randomly and Van Helsing has a contemptuous demeanor that is ridiculous and pointless. This movie couldn't possibly make any sense without reading the book. It's got its fans, though. IMDB is full of positive comments--I don't know why.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)

IMDB Rating: 2.8. It should be obvious from the title that this has nothing to do with the book. While it has its moments, it's pretty cheesy, somewhat gory, and has the worse, cartoonish Dracula you can image. Dr. Frankenstein is pretty creepy in a wheelchair and Lon Chaney is pretty good as his brutish, simple-minded assistant.

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

IMDB Rating: 5.5. This is another Hammer production starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. It's very good, suspenseful, and logical (given the premise), though only faintly based on the book. It takes place in modern London and involves Dracula's reincarnation by a band of thrill-seeking teenagers, one of whom is Van Helsing's great-great-granddaughter.

Blood for Dracula (1974)

IMDB Rating: 6.0. AKA Andy Warhol's Dracula...The music, scenery, and locations are very nice, and the acting is interesting because it's so weird. If vampires were real, this is probably how they'd be--without supernatural powers, vulnerable yet deadly, trying to live their lives, kind of like carnivorous animals that need to kill to survive. It has nothing to do with Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it's unusual and worth watching.

Dracula (1979)

IMDB Rating: 6.1. Starring Frank Langella, this one was boring when I saw it years ago and it's still boring today. The music and scenery, however, are quite good. Unfortunately they spend too much time in a weird zoo-like lunatic asylum, it's slow with no suspense, and the ending is ridiculous. You can understand it better if you read the book first, but it's still boring.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

IMDB Rating: 7.3. This is both the best and the worst Dracula movie. It's the best because it's well acted and produced, suspenseful, and mostly true to the characters, places, and plot. It's also the worst, though, because of 2 disastrous departures they take from Stoker's classic: In Dracula's backstory, he turns himself into a vampire and then there's an absurd love affair between him and Mina! It's more fun if you read the book first because you'll recognize quotes and scenes directly from the book. By the way, this Dracula's appearance realistically resembles Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (1431-1476), the real Dracula from history.

Dracula: The Vampire & the Voivode (2008)

This is an interesting but kind of dull biographical documentary on Bram Stoker and Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. Voivode is, roughly, Romanian for Count. If you're American, you may have trouble understanding some of the Irish and British accents, but it's full of information and trivia. All serious fans of Bram Stoker and Dracula should see this.

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Dracula (1897) and Religion

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) begins with religion having a noticeable but minor role. The role, however, grows significantly as the story progresses and becomes the concluding theme of the book.

Jonathan Harker, fresh from England, while observing the people of Transylvania, their dress and customs, notes their frequent use of religious gestures and objects and recalls his upbringing against idolatry. He notes it but merely accepts it as their way of life.

Back in civilized England, however, religion is present but as more of a background activity than a central feature of people's lives.

Eventually Mina Harker is bitten and begins transforming into a vampire. When she and Van Helsing's band travel to the wilderness, they have to rely on God's will to survive and succeed in their mission. They're outside the realm of known science, so all they have is their faith. They have learned what the local people have learned, that garlic and religious objects repel vampires. Now they, too, must practice what they once thought was superstition.

They accept that Mina can only be saved by God's will. Civilization and scientific knowledge will not help. Fortunately Van Helsing with his open mind and logical thinking is able to devise a plan that, God willing, will save her. They must find and destroy Dracula and the 3 sister vampires.

In the end, God's will prevails, good wins over evil, and Mina is saved. She even notices Dracula himself finds peace at last--just a brief look on his face as he dies. Unfortunately Quincey dies in the struggle but future generations are now safe from the menace of Dracula and the three sister vampires.

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.