Today's youth culture has developed a strange penchant for Vampires. Need I even mention the 'Twilight' saga? I would really rather not but I suspect it is going to be necessary. Had I been a few years younger, I probably would have been swept up into the craze and the ongoing war of Team Jacob vs. Team Edward. I have in fact given in to my curiosity , and sat through the films brooding, and juvenile tone. Despite my general disgust at Kristen Stewart's attempt at acting and Robert Pattinson's monstrous eyebrows, the film I have to admit, isn't half bad. Disregarding both films weak plot lines (girl meets guy, guy gets angry, cue credits) they do have fantastic soundtracks, featuring bands like Muse and the Killers, and it does help that Taylor Lawson rips off his clothes at every given opportunity. In spite of this, I'll settle for whatever I can take away from these films, even if it's just the verification that I won't be seeing the rest in the series. But I digress...
Compared to Bram Stoker's 'Dracula', 'Twilight' really is a load of garbage. Indeed, all recent Vampire related excursions such as 'True Blood' and the lesser know 'Vampire Diaries' are no comparison. I am greatly perturbed by the fact that many teenagers will not even be aware that every Vampire film or television series, has it's origins rooted in Stoker's novel. This may be because the image of the vampire has been so greatly altered, tweaked, or 'sexed up' over time, that the original description is almost irrecognisable. We all have a built up picture of Dracula in our minds, for most of us this will be tall, strangely alluring, cloaked, black haired with a widows peak. This could not be further from Stoker's orginal vampire:
"His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed. The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin."
No wonder the characteristics of vampires have been altered, this description would not do for a teenflic, I can't see girls becoming enamoured with the original Dracula, sending him their underwear in the post or begging him to marry them. Well, not many girls anyway.
So maybe Stoker's Count Dracula can't match up to Stephenie Meyer's dark and handsome Edward lookswise, but in regards to supernatural powers, to put it bluntly, Dracula could kick Edward's butt. Nevermind Edward vs. Jacob, I'm more interested in Edward vs. Dracula! What I don't understand is that nowadays, people are more likely to read a Twilight book, than Dracula. Yes, Edward is beautiful and sparkles in the sunlight, he can also run very fast and jump up trees, but not once (except to save 'Bella's' life) does he actually 'vant to suck your blood'. Dracula on the other hand, is ruthless and bloodthirsty, hunting down beautiful women to make his undead brides and bored with his Transylvanian home, seeks to conquer Britain. Edward doesn't have such grand aspirations, preferring a vow to never attack humans and instead to befriend and bewitch them. Furthermore, Dracula can command wolves to do his bidding and transform into a bat whereas Edward, has a pack of werewolves set on killing him and likes to drive around in flamboyant sport cars.
Overall, whilst Edward may be the modern Dracula, once you compare the two, he sounds watered down and pathetic. If people gave it a try, they would find Stoker's novel completely enthralling, the characters have much more depth and Dracula is a truely repulsive villain who can recieve no sympathy in contrast with Twilight which yes, has villains, but they are so very attractive.
