Yes! There is a connection with the devil! Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't read Dracula by Bram Stoker.
Before writing The Fourth Bride, I studied the novel, Dracula and I learned a great deal. I learned for instance, that the count attended a school in Scholomance in Transylvania where he learned the black arts. Bram Stoker includes an intriguing allusion to a mysterious devil’s school in Transylvania: The Draculas, he wrote, “had dealings with the Evil One. They learned his secrets in the Scholomance, amongst the mountains over Lake Hermanstadt, where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due.”
The vampire himself was one of these scholars, a diabolic genius.
Now then, horror fiction is diverse as tastes are. Vampires are written a variety of ways, but one truth unites all of them. It is at the core of their being. THEY ARE DEMONIC CREATURES. They may be tortured and miserable, but they are what they are. If an author wants to dream up a different sort of being--fine. That might prove to be very interesting. But for now, please let me know that you understand that Bram Stoker who wrote the iconic novel, Dracula was writing him with a core connection to the devil. If you dispute that, you don't know what Dracula is really about.
Let the spins roll on, it's good for the vampire sub genre as long as we know what the original blood-sucking count was really about.
Interesting post, Carole. I'd forgotten the Scholomance school, but I knew of Dracula's association with the devil, which is why most vampires consider themselves damned or cursed. They've turned away from God, making crosses and crucifixes an anathema to them, and most mortals view them as unwholesome creatures, if not outright evil.
ReplyDeleteLike many other authors, I used Bram Stoker's version to base my world, but also explained the differences between our visions as myth vs. reality. The lead vampire in my story has an uneasy relationship with sunlight, but is not relegated to a coffin during the day. He does consider himself to be a living dead creature, or undead, so his skin doesn't sparkle despite his sanctions against killing and transformations (I have nothing against sparkling vampires, they're just not in my world). My hero considers human lives precious. Also, despite existing in an altered state of forever, my vampires retain their humanity, which Dracula did not. Though my hero did kill in his early days of frenzied feeding, he doesn't require a human sacrifice to survive, and struggles against the constant temptation to take blood until the heart stops beating.
The most important thing, in my mind, is not whether an author chooses to follow Stoker's vision, but that he or she remains faithful to the rules they establish in their own world, even if they violate every concept Bram Stoker established in his original version.
Thank you very much for your comment and the insight into how you wrote your novel.
ReplyDeleteI preferred to pay tribute to Stoker because of all the liberties taken with his character, Dracula.
That was why I wrote my novel the way i did. Spins on Dracula are fine. But that's what they are, their spins as i see it. Which as i said, is good for the vampire genre.
I don't see it as rules to violate or not. I see it as writing about Dracula in the way Stoker did but adding a living life for him and a dark romance, along with developing the character of his brides which are given more substance, This was all to embellish the story of Dracula which was my intention and which I hope I have done. Again, thank you.