#you are not expected to have personal opinion or knowledge about how idk cheese traps work

[lost-and-cursed]

It actually made me want to pitch in. I don't have some grand point or resolution. But some of the arguments and reasoning was a bit of uncanny valley to me.

I used to work in soulless mass produced cheap copywriting/rewriting. And it's basically business plagiarism in it's finest. You not so much write as string together words and key phrases, paraphrasing the original source and usually some additional sources. Quality isn't determined by how good you write, but how unrecognisable your theft is.

With addition of school projects that are basically "make puzzle out of quotes" as personal experience, I am genuinely desensetized to plagiarism in nonfiction. It makes me think a lot about what Harris said.

I don't have some larger conclusion, but I guess it can be one example of how "business majors" get their soul stolen

#hbomberguy #mine #you are not expected to have personal opinion or knowledge about how idk cheese traps work #or what's the best restaurant in the city #you expected to Google some stuff for twenty minutes or less and produce something regurgitated #though to be fare even school work is more about blending others takes and knowledge #and not just fucking copypasting what the hell

[ferelog]

a dracula book review.

ok team yk what this world really, really, really needs. from me specifically.  

A DRACULA BOOK REVIEW 

dun dun dun. we will be looking into bram stoker’s original 1897 edition which I vaguely pirated online but it is ok!! because copyright is over  (if u wanna read use this link here: https://www.bramstoker.org/pdf/novels/05dracula.pdf) 

so on one hand Dracula is an icon. but on the other hand the novel was written by an Englishman in the 19th century. I went into this thing not knowing what to think and honestly idk what I expected but it was mid. that is my claim and my thesis. the characters are like grain crackers without cheese. the plot is okay and vaguely interesting but not enough to carry the mounds of dialogue and description that you sloooooooooooog through. but if it helps Dracula is kinda hot. (disclaimer: this opinion depends on your taste) 

the beginning has all of the trappings of gothic horror. man goes to creepy abandoned house. man meets creepy suspicious guy. creepy suspicious guy is creepy and suspicious. boohoo yadda yadda. the protagonist figures out that Dracula is very sus within the first few weeks, since man is less subtle than the worst amongus imposter. at this point we’re like fifty pages in and I’m fearing spending the next three hundred pages reading about Dracula and the protag running around in circles. luckily that doesn’t happen and the plot actually moves out of dracula’s castle at a pretty quick pace. this is commendable: the antagonist is quickly introduced in an interesting manner and after this little tutorial we have enough knowledge to confirm that Dracula is the bad guy. this was likely pretty important for first-time Dracula readers back in 1897, when vampires were less mainstream and you couldn’t identify one by his elongated fangs and how he literally goes “When the Count saw my [bleeding] face, his eyes blazed with a sort of demoniac fury, and he suddenly made a grab at my throat.” again, man is unsubtle. 

as a quick aside there are some interpretations of Dracula as embodying “transgressive but compelling sexuality” (from Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s monster culture (seven theses) if anyone is curious) which I find hilarious and can definitely make a reading more interesting. you’re welcome. 

ok now that the intro is over we get acquainted with the rest of the characters and let me tell you they are dryyyyyyyyy. to make my point I will now rank them from most to least uninteresting. 

Arthur Holmwood: man is literally just there to mourn his fiancée and act as a big strong man to increase the anti-Dracula attack force. only thing he brings to the plot is 1. money 2. he is attached to his fiancée I guess. 3/10. 

Jonathan Harker: our MC who is vaguely an audience insert and as per such reacts averagely to anything. his character does almost nothing surprising. you see a lot of the story (especially the beginning) through his eyes so you do get familiar with him in that way but he is an utter milquetoast. 3.5/10 

Quincey Morris: an unmarried American version of Arthur. he is kinda cooler in that he has a personality. “American” isn’t much of a personality but Arthur doesn’t seem to have one at all so he wins. 3.5/10  

Lucy Westenra: ok she is not boring (if only because of all the stuff that happens to her) but she is so goddamn annoying. she seems like a little doll who doesn’t do anything despite everything occurring and can only wait for people to rescue her which is infuriating at best. does not pass the sexy lamp test. 4/10 

Dracula: weird evil man who has weird evil motives. his lack of nuance is a shame since the novel does mention interesting lore about him like how he lives on “the ground fought over for centuries by the Wallachian, the Saxon, and the Turk” and how “In some faculties of mind he has been, and is, only a child.” but it's not explored and in the end he’s just a villain who kills because he needs to kill to survive. a shame. 5/10 

John Seward: ok he actually has like. unique feelings about what is happening. his romantic interest for Lucy v. not being able to marry her v. his distaste for vampires is kinda entertaining, or at least more entertaining than whatever Arthur has going on. he makes some unique actions (for instance, calling Van Helsing) that make him seem more reliable 6/10 

Mina nee Murray Harker:  

she is cool but severely undermined by how sexist the book is. 6.5/10 

Abraham Van Helsing: ok he is cool if only because he has all the puzzle pieces (apparently) and actually seems to know what’s going on but it has to be acknowledged that his reluctance to explain what he knows screws people over. 1/10 teammate 6.5/10 

Renfield: his personality is nothing to write home about but what happens to him is the most interesting thing by far. 7/10 

u need to spend a lot of time with these characters since the story is told from their perspectives. the storytelling method is also really interesting—it’s told in first-person via the characters’ journals, audio recordings, and diaries, which is admittedly clever. the method that a character uses to record their thoughts is also indicative of their personality and profession. Mina uses a typewriter since she wants to be a secretary. I really like this aspect of Dracula. unfortunately, the plot and characters are still something you have to trudge through. the plot itself is a typical adventure gung-ho “let’s go defeat the villain” type beat, which isn’t particularly inspiring. Dracula’s supernatural abilities also seem utterly random, which makes the mystery of “what does Dracula do??” significantly less interesting since turning into a tornado and sucking blood doesn’t seem to be related at all. why bother predicting this character’s powers if they’re completely absurd? a shounen battle anime could do better (Naruto-excluded).  

TL;DR: Dracula is mid. it is 357 pages of dried bread characters, an average plot, and not even that terrifying gothic horror. read it if you want, it’s a classic, but honestly it’s not really worth it. #sorrydraculafans 

#dracula #Stoker Bram. “Dracula.” Archibald Constable and Company 1897. #book review #in which i unleash my objectively correct opinions unto the world #all things aside mina is actually pretty interesting #i really liked her and then they did her dirty #stoker y u gotta do dis to me #thank u for coming to my tedtalk