I see Dracula as representing something different in the context of Buffy and the novel. In the novel, he and the three sisters under his command are presumably the only vampires, or at least the only ones that the Dracula equivalent of the Scooby gang is worried about. Buffy, on the other hand, lives on a hellmouth, where her life is defined by the steady stream of vampires and other demons that come to wreak havoc. In this context, he seems a little less intimidating. Sure, he’s built up by what Spike calls his “showy Gypsy stuff,” and because of him, medieval castles appear in Sunnydale, and Buffy falls under his “thrall”… ok, so he’s a big deal. But nevertheless, his ultimate place in Buffy’s world is just another one of many supernatural forces she has to deal with. He provides an excellent catalyst for reconsidering her darker nature and reaffirming her bond with Giles as her watcher, but he’s just another bad guy. He doesn’t even seem to have much of an agenda after he sees that Buffy isn’t as vulnerable as he thought. He is, ultimately, a plot device (and a convenient way to intelligently mock gothic literary conventions).
In the novel, on the other hand, he is “the most not probable,” the inconceivable incarnation of all things unholy. Most of the time, he is not even present—he is simply an evil shadow lurking around, causing offstage action. The literary representation of Dracula is darker because it is more singular. He preys on fairly helpless female victims (Buffy has ways of fighting back that Lucy and Mina, obviously, are incapable of simulating) and his seductive nature and desire to corrupt are much more incriminating in Victorian England than in California in the 1990s.
It all comes down to the fact that the culture has changed. For vampires to seem scary, there must be a network of them, or they must belong to some complex supernatural category with other similar members (such as the varied kinds of demons in Buffy). They must represent more of a social group than simply radical, satanic outliers. One sexy vampire with a couple of seductive sidekicks doesn’t really scare us anymore, at least not the way it used to. Buffy acknowledges this fact by making fun of Dracula’s glamorous proclivities while simultaneously recognizing that the dark, seductive power of the vampire (and the effect of prolonged proximity to darkness) is worth exploring further.
Grace, this was a great post. I especially like your points regarding vampires and zeitgeist, and how our interpretations of vampires have changed over the years – from monstrous Nosferatu, for example, to the ~*~sexy~*~ Edward Cullen and Sook-eh Stackhouse. For the most part, today’s vampires are just “typical” people dealing with “typical” problems. (But with more blood involved, you know, for overt symbolism. The most obvious example that comes to mind is True Blood – that is, the writers of the books have even admitted that the series is a parallel of the gay rights movement.) I think it’s interesting how those characters that would be once considered “weird” (and thus “other” and unnerving) are now being appropriated as emblems of change and progress, as well as representative of our culture’s acceptance of a grayer morality. (Think of all the “gritty reboots” that have been popping up recently, with brooding anti-heroes and sympathetic villains.)
ReplyDeleteAnd I like your comment about the "network" of vampires being necessary in today's portrayals... it seems like a byproduct of our Internet-addled society, eh? Social networking and globalization are all the rage, so naturally our vampires should get in on it, too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMadeline Umscheid said...
ReplyDeleteI really like how you differentiate between the importance of Dracula to Buffy and his importance towards the characters in Stoker's novel. I think this mostly stems from the format of Buffy being a TV show forcing any and all villains to be in some way impermanent, but I also like your idea about the newer cultural fear of a network or danger stemming from a group of people.
I think what Madeline says here about TV villians being impermanent is really important to point out. Something to think about: Is the fear of villians in books longer lasting than that in TV shows? In a show like buffy, the images are scary, but we are relieved of them very quickly with humorous images and/or different scary images every week. Aside from large plot lines, villians are left around to fear for very long. In a novel however, we create the image ourselves from the descriptions, and when the book is over, we have nothing to wash out our minds. So which is scarier? I think the books!
ReplyDelete