Castlevania Dungeon Forums

Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Super Waffle on September 03, 2013, 07:08:57 AM

Title: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Super Waffle on September 03, 2013, 07:08:57 AM
Original thread title: "I started reading Dracula"


I'm about 20 pages into it.

When is this Keanu Reeves dork going to stop talking about food?  I was under the impression this book had a lot of death and corrupt bitches in it.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Mooning Freddy on September 03, 2013, 08:04:20 AM
I don't think the succubus award is enough for you, SW. You seriously need a gigantic man-eating phallus award or something.   ;D

Dracula's corrupt bitches appear by the end of Jonathan Harker's Journal, the first part of the book, around page 40-50. Oh, and if you want to skip the Mina-Lucy pointless girly talk and putzi-mutzi romance you should skip the Mina journal and start reading around page 150.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 03, 2013, 08:10:07 AM
Is the girly talk portion any worse than "This Carpathian food tastes good (mem.: Get recipe for Mina).  This book is nightmarishly boring (mem.: Don't read it again after you finish it once)"? 

I'm not sure I like how you're telling me I can basically skip the first third of the story and I won't be lost at all when things start actually happening.  Good God it sounds like someone wrote a 19th century version of the Muv-Luv trilogy.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Mooning Freddy on September 03, 2013, 10:39:04 AM
You must keep in mind while reading it that it's a thriller / adventure NOVEL written in the 19th century. The nightmarishly long character development was required in the book to build suspense.
I must say I actually liked the first part of the book, i.e. Jonathan's stay in Dracula's castle. It's long and quite annoying, but it creates an atmosphere of despair as
(click to show/hide)

Now the second part of the book, this is where the real nightmare starts. You want me to summarize what they're about to save you a tiresome read?
(click to show/hide)
From that point the story gets a little bit more interesting but not a lot. What bothers me most is the way all the characters are like "OMG Nosferatu OMG so horrible we must now work together for the good of mankind and love each other even though we don't even know each other and were just fighting over the same girl a moment ago." The exaggerated British chivalry is what annoys me in the story. The good / evil dichotomy is so intense. Dracula is the ultimate evil while the rest are the perfect knights and maidens. That part is what bores me.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 03, 2013, 12:03:36 PM
The part of Mina's journal does drag on yeah, it's been years since I've read it but iirc there's a part with an old sailor that's omitted from probably every adaptation for a reason, because it's really boring even when it's supposed to be spooooky. I generally dislike first person novels and even though I've read it multiple times I think Dracula is pretty weak overall.

Frankenstein (otherwise easily a superior book) is even worse when it drags though. There's a part in the middle that goes on and on with a mind-numbing melodrama about the family the monster observes to learn to read/speak. It stops the story dead in its tracks until you forget what you're reading and why.

I've not read it but maybe you'd more enjoy Bram Stoker's hilariously Freudian "Lair of the White Worm" about an evil snake woman? Or at least the film adaptation
The Lair of The White Worm - Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRdjfhCHG70#)
Bet that's one movie Hugh Grant leaves off his resume.

PS- Don't bother reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it's written as a mystery. SPOILERS! Jekyll and Hyde are the same person.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: chainsawmidget on September 03, 2013, 12:45:36 PM
While we are on the subject of classic monster literature, I highly recommend The Invisible man.  It's much shorter and the Invisible man is written as a straight up insane evil bastard. 
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 03, 2013, 12:56:32 PM
Is this going to end like the Frank Langella version where he totally NTRs the fiancee at the end?


I generally dislike first person novels

oh.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7181826/2/Refrain (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7181826/2/Refrain)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7845896/1/Bad-Touching-the-Brain-Meats-Epilogue (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7845896/1/Bad-Touching-the-Brain-Meats-Epilogue)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8314408/2/A-Cadet-s-Account (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8314408/2/A-Cadet-s-Account)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7233854/1/Ramblings-of-an-Evil-Scientist (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7233854/1/Ramblings-of-an-Evil-Scientist)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7233854/2/Ramblings-of-an-Evil-Scientist (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7233854/2/Ramblings-of-an-Evil-Scientist)

Tell me how you feel about this.

Quote
PS- Don't bother reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it's written as a mystery. SPOILERS! Jekyll and Hyde are the same person.
Hey, how did you know I was reading the version that crams Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll in a single book?
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Belmontoya on September 03, 2013, 12:59:07 PM
I liked the book, though it does drag at times. I actually like the changes made to the story in coppolas film. He made some of the protagonists less perfect and more realistic.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Lelygax on September 03, 2013, 01:37:44 PM
@Montoya: I've noticed it only now, this Nosferatu on your avatar was doing a pose like in this famous old portrait. (sorry, I dont remember the name, but its one of these that they show in museum and teach in school.)

@Ratty: Wow, so this book is totally thorn apart nowadays, since everyone knows that they are the same person and it kills the mystery.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Mooning Freddy on September 03, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
I liked Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  It's really not the plot twist that is important. It's like saying that knowing Dracula is a vampire is ruining the book for you because only in the middle of the book Van Helsing realizes he is one.

There are many ways to interpret Stevenson's novella. Rather than a battle of good and evil in the human soul, I actually think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde can be seen as an allegory to drug abuse and addiction. It is quite clear that Jekyll transforms into Hyde by taking a drug, usually pictured by drinking, but I remember a Russian film in which he was injecting it. The drug makes him feel all-powerful and free of moral restrains but he eventually becomes addicted to it, becoming a monster just like drug addicts.
Makes sense too, since morphine, heroin and opium were very popular in Victorian England in the time of the story.

http://www.bloodsprayer.com/dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-a-portrait-of-drug-addiction/ (http://www.bloodsprayer.com/dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-a-portrait-of-drug-addiction/)
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 03, 2013, 02:10:33 PM
Super Waffle - I'm not familiar with any of those franchises so I don't think I could give work based on them a fair shake. I just generally don't like first person stories because I find they hinder my suspension of disbelief. It's one thing to have an event matter-of-factly stated, it's another to have someone claim they did/saw something, at least for me. There's also the issue of knowing the narrator will survive, unless it turns out they're dead in the end which always feels like such a huge, cheap cop-out.

Jeffrey Montoya - I've tried to read that a couple times but both times found out about halfway through I was reading an abridged version and angrily stopped. Not tried it since I was a kid though, probably pick it back up at some point. I quite liked "The Island of Doctor Moreau" by the same author.

Lelygax - Yeah, exactly.

Freddy - If you say so. Of course the use of Werewolfism as an allegory for drug abuse or other negative addictions holds true for the story, but I found it rather dull.

I should finish reading the penny dreadful "Wagner the Wehr-Wolf" at some point, it was pretty enjoyable for absurd Victorian melodrama, not sure why I stopped.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 03, 2013, 04:06:23 PM
hey

What if I read Carmilla?
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 03, 2013, 04:35:28 PM
hey

What if I read Carmilla?

That's on my to-read list. Along with most of the other stories in this collection. http://www.amazon.com/The-Vampire-Archives-Complete-Published/dp/0307473899 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Vampire-Archives-Complete-Published/dp/0307473899)
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: TheouAegis on September 03, 2013, 04:56:11 PM
I actually liked the scene when Frankenstein's creature mooches off the family. I never once while reading the novel felt the book was actually about a horrible undead monster, but always about the horrible monster that was Victor himself. Victor was just plain a horrible, awful person. He was the true villain and monster. The creature learns how to communicate by living in the family's shed and conversing with the grandfather, and through that learning he is able to express himself intelligibly, offering strong arguments against Victor as to why it's okay for him (the Creature) to murder those around Victor.  Yes, he's killing innocent people, but just as Victor viewed the creature as a tool and a means to an end, so too does the Creature view those around Victor as tools and means to an end. He makes valid justifications for his actions and yet in the end Victor still maintains that he is in the right and that the creature must be destroyed; and yet the ship's captain leaves the creature well enough alone, not wanting any part of Victor's self-wrought Hell.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 03, 2013, 05:10:48 PM
Oh I agree that the book is more complex than just the monster being bad, and the argument that Victor is the real monster isn't a hard one to make. But I felt it got so wrapped up in telling the story of the family the monster is watching that the book loses sight of both of its main characters for a while, though the section is ostensibly about the creature learning to talk and interact with humans. Haven't read it since High School but that's the distinct impression of that section which I remember.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: DoctaMario on September 03, 2013, 10:55:10 PM
I didn't like Dracula when I first read it, but now it's one of my favorite books. In a way, it's like the first reality show. It's very voyeuristic in the sense that everything you learn is by way of reading the characters' diaries and letters. I'm not sure if it was the first book to be written that way, but it was a brilliant idea on Stoker's part.

I also liked the parallels that Coppola drew in his movie of Mina possibly being a reincarnation of Elizabetha.

Has anyone read the sequel, "Dracula The UnDead?" I bought it for a dollar somewhere while I was on tour and haven't read it yet. It was written by Stoker's grand nephew or something. I don't know if it's a good book or not, but I'm kind of looking forward to delving into it.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: The Puritan on September 04, 2013, 01:14:51 AM
Has anyone read the sequel, "Dracula The UnDead?" I bought it for a dollar somewhere while I was on tour and haven't read it yet. It was written by Stoker's grand nephew or something. I don't know if it's a good book or not, but I'm kind of looking forward to delving into it.

I won't go into detail, but for a book that claimed to be the "true sequel"? It was... between mediocre and rather bad.  :-\

The only thing of note about it was the revelation that in Bram Stoker's notes for the first novel, he originally intended for the castle to crumble after Dracula's defeat.

Yes, you read that right. Crumble.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: X on September 04, 2013, 10:32:17 AM
Quote
This book is nightmarishly boring (mem.: Don't read it again after you finish it once)"? 

Of course it is. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula at a time when there was no expectations of fast-paced plots or extreme suspense. Those are the norms of today and back in the 1800s' it was not unusual to have such a 'boring' book like that to be published. Modern novelization is much, much different then it was back in the day.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 04, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Quote
I was not alone. The room was the same, unchanged in any way since I came into it. I could see along the floor, in the brilliant moonlight, my own footsteps marked where I had disturbed the long accumulation of dust. In the moonlight opposite me were three young women, ladies by their dress and manner. I thought at the time that I must be dreaming when I saw them, they threw no shadow on the floor. They came close to me, and looked at me for some time, and then whispered together. Two were dark, and had high aquiline noses, like the Count, and great dark, piercing eyes, that seemed to be almost red when contrasted with the pale yellow moon. The other was fair, as fair as can be, with great masses of golden hair and eyes like pale sapphires. I seemed somehow to know her face, and to know it in connection with some dreamy fear, but I could not recollect at the moment how or where. All three had brilliant white teeth that shone like pearls against the ruby of their voluptuous lips. There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear. I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that they would kiss me with those red lips.It is not good to note this down, lest some day it should meet Mina's eyes and cause her pain, but it is the truth. They whispered together, and then they all three laughed, such a silvery, musical laugh, but as hard as though the sound never could have come through the softness of human lips. It was like the intolerable, tingling sweetness of waterglasses when played on by a cunning hand. The fair girl shook her head coquettishly, and the other two urged her on.

One said, "Go on! You are first, and we shall follow. Yours' is the right to begin."

The other added, "He is young and strong. There are kisses for us all."

I lay quiet, looking out from under my eyelashes in an agony of delightful anticipation. The fair girl advanced and bent over me till I could feel the movement of her breath upon me. Sweet it was in one sense, honey-sweet, and sent the same tingling through the nerves as her voice, but with a bitter underlying the sweet, a bitter offensiveness, as one smells in blood.

I was afraid to raise my eyelids, but looked out and saw perfectly under the lashes. The girl went on her knees, and bent over me, simply gloating. There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth. Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range of my mouth and chin and seemed to fasten on my throat. Then she paused, and I could hear the churning sound of her tongue as it licked her teeth and lips, and I could feel the hot breath on my neck. Then the skin of my throat began to tingle as one's flesh does when the hand that is to tickle it approaches nearer, nearer. I could feel the soft, shivering touch of the lips on the super sensitive skin of my throat, and the hard dents of two sharp teeth, just touching and pausing there. I closed my eyes in languorous ecstasy and waited, waited with beating heart.

ooo, this is getting spicy.

I wonder how I can incorporate Maria/Angela/Charlotte/Pachislot Sypha/Shanoa into this.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 05, 2013, 09:43:45 AM
oh god Ratty they're talking about the sailor.

More shenanigans with the wives plz.


edit:  "oh noes Lucy went skimping down the road in her nighties again, I have to protect her chastity and make sure nobody finds out about this and hide all the evidence so rumors don't break out."

then why are you writing it down?


edit 2:  Hmm, I wonder if Lucy is going to survive.

edit 3:  Guess not.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 06, 2013, 04:03:13 PM
oh god Ratty they're talking about the sailor.

More shenanigans with the wives plz.


edit:  "oh noes Lucy went skimping down the road in her nighties again, I have to protect her chastity and make sure nobody finds out of this and hide all the evidence so rumors don't break out."

then why are you writing it down?


edit 2:  Hmm, I wonder if Lucy is going to survive.

edit 3:  Guess not.

Yeah Vamp-Lucy is one of the few real highlights after the opening chapters with Jonathan in the Castle until the climax iirc. Thankfully it's not that long a book. Influential serialized penny dreadful "Varney the Vampire or the Feast of Blood" was 109 chapters long!

I think Bram Stoker might have had his eye on a play adaptation of the story from the start. As many here know in his day job he was manager of a playhouse and assistant to a famous actor. He did write a play version of Dracula "cobbled together to ensure his dramatic copyright." as Ray Olson from Booklist put it. The prologue to this Stoker script was published in "The Mammoth Book of Dracula". ( http://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Dracula-Stephen-Jones/dp/B006J43JUE (http://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Dracula-Stephen-Jones/dp/B006J43JUE) ) Maybe he was planning on turning his story into a proper play but it became so popular others did it for him?
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 07, 2013, 11:03:21 AM
That's right, Anthony Hopkins.  It's not like that bat Quincey saw on the windowsill could mean anything important.  Dracula couldn't possibly be spying on you when you just finished talking about how he can disguise himself as a bat.

God dammit when I wrote that one story (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6860267/1/Late-Arrival) where Alucard is hilariously dense and can't quite figure out what's going on I did it as a joke.  I didn't realize it was actually an authentic Victorian era in-character thing.  They should have just called this book Bram Stoker's Really Really Dumb Motherfuckers.

edit: why don't they just ask Renfield what his blatantly obvious connection to Dracula is

edit 2:

(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv177%2Ftenshousouhazan%2Frorona.jpg&hash=73b2382cb081f593bdf54722fb1654e7)
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 07, 2013, 11:13:26 AM
Yeah that's one of the most disturbing things about how Dracula is constantly sexualized and played as a romantic character. For my sanity I have to assume it's because more people are familiar with the Bela Lugosi version than the original, because in the actual book he's basically a rapist. Very few adaptations keep that primal, unpleasant, evil and violent aspect of the character.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Tanatra on September 07, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
One must keep in mind that Dracula was never regarded as a classic until it became popularized by Nosferatu (which essentially ripped it off.) A lot of comments in this topic about the dialogue and story being drawn out (despite the story not even being all that long) are spot-on, and all of the characters are rather flat as well, not to mention that the ending is anti-climatic. All of the scenes with the female vampires were great though.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 07, 2013, 02:25:42 PM
Quote
but it seemed as though corruption had become itself corrupt.

Kinky.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 07, 2013, 03:22:41 PM
One must keep in mind that Dracula was never regarded as a classic until it became popularized by Nosferatu (which essentially ripped it off.) A lot of comments in this topic about the dialogue and story being drawn out (despite the story not even being all that long) are spot-on, and all of the characters are rather flat as well, not to mention that the ending is anti-climatic. All of the scenes with the female vampires were great though.
This is sort of...ill-informed.
Nosferatu didn't rip off Dracula, it flat-out adapted it (Prana Films, the company that made it, sort of ripped off Bram Stoker's widow, but that's not the same thing). Nosferatu got brushed under the rug when Stoker's widow threw a fit, although there were plenty of copies out there. But the novel Dracula has never been out of print. Nope. Not even in those years between 1897 and the release of Nosferatu. So Stoker must have tapped into something.
I personally agree with Clive Barker's assessment of it- "It's a first rate late 19th-Century trashy novel". I think those reading it often go in with the wrong expectations.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Tanatra on September 07, 2013, 03:55:11 PM
This is sort of...ill-informed.
Nosferatu didn't rip off Dracula, it flat-out adapted it (Prana Films, the company that made it, sort of ripped off Bram Stoker's widow, but that's not the same thing). Nosferatu got brushed under the rug when Stoker's widow threw a fit, although there were plenty of copies out there. But the novel Dracula has never been out of print. Nope. Not even in those years between 1897 and the release of Nosferatu. So Stoker must have tapped into something.
I personally agree with Clive Barker's assessment of it- "It's a first rate late 19th-Century trashy novel". I think those reading it often go in with the wrong expectations.

Um, where in my post did I say that it went out of print? And last I checked, adapting a story without giving credit to the author (or in this case, the author's estate) qualifies as a rip-off.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Ratty on September 07, 2013, 04:22:45 PM
I don't know if the book's never been out of print (I know it hasn't since the success of the 1931 Lugosi film, 19 years after Stoker's death) but if it hasn't it didn't make Stoker a lot of money since the year he died he had to ask for a compassionate grant to live on ( http://www.todayinliterature.com/stories.asp?Event_Date=4/20/1912 (http://www.todayinliterature.com/stories.asp?Event_Date=4/20/1912) ) I think the controversy over Nosferatu did raise the profile of the novel a lot and without it we almost certainly wouldn't have our beloved Count as we know him today.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 07, 2013, 05:21:46 PM
Um, where in my post did I say that it went out of print? And last I checked, adapting a story without giving credit to the author (or in this case, the author's estate) qualifies as a rip-off.

I didn't say you said that. I said that as an attestation to the novel's long-term popularity. And the print of Nosferatu that I own does say, on the second title card "From the novel by Bram Stoker", although since this particular print also refers to Dracula simply as "Count Dracula" rather than "Count Orlock", I can't really state if the original print carried that.

However, I really think we're lending a bit too much credibility to the idea that controversy over Murnau's Nosferatu somehow kept the book in greater circulation. There was no internet at the time and I doubt that copyright disputes were commonly front-page news. The only source the average person would likely have to learn about this would be film-fan magazines like PhotoPlay. The John Balderston-Hamilton Deane play that was adapted into the 1931 film was independently popular in its own right with people that couldn't care less about an international copyright tiff.

One thing to note about the novel is that it spoke to a lot of the fears of the Victorian era that don't resonate as strongly with us today. We don't have the same hang ups about sex and foreigners (most of us), so Dracula obviously isn't going to mean the same things to us if it means anything at all.
Title: Re: I started reading Dracula
Post by: Super Waffle on September 07, 2013, 07:26:22 PM
Quote
And so you, like the others, would play your brains against mine. You would help these men to hunt me and frustrate me in my design! You know now, and they know in part already, and will know in full before long, what it is to cross my path. They should have kept their energies for use closer to home. Whilst they played wits against me, against me who commanded nations, and intrigued for them, and fought for them, hundreds of years before they were born, I was countermining them. And you, their best beloved one, are now to me, flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood, kin of my kin, my bountiful wine-press for a while, and shall be later on my companion and my helper. You shall be avenged in turn, for not one of them but shall minister to your needs. But as yet you are to be punished for what you have done. You have aided in thwarting me. Now you shall come to my call. When my brain says "Come!" to you, you shall cross land or sea to do my bidding. And to that end this!

just like Sophia.


p.s.: okay yeah that whole hey-let's-hypnotize-Mina-to-figure-out-he's-on-a-boat thing was a giant ass pull.

p.p.s.:  Well that book wasn't too bad once you get past the pacing issues and all the really stupid people.  It was kind of weird how the AMURRIKUH guy basically became the main character in the last few pages, though.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 13, 2013, 04:08:31 PM
Well Wicked turned out to be kind of overrated.

I'll let you guys know when my copy of Carmilla comes in.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 13, 2013, 04:20:37 PM
You just got Carmilla? Not the whole "In A Glass Darkly" collection?
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 13, 2013, 07:12:46 PM
In a what what?

Isn't that a Keanu Reeves movie?
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 13, 2013, 08:28:12 PM
In A Glass Darkly is the collection that LeFanu originally published Carmilla in. Carmilla itself is fairly short.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Ratty on September 13, 2013, 08:32:25 PM
It's also in the public domain and free if you don't mind reading on your computer or a pad/e-reader http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10007 (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10007)
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 13, 2013, 08:44:53 PM
In A Glass Darkly is the collection that LeFanu originally published Carmilla in. Carmilla itself is fairly short.
Oh, no.  I just got the stand-alone version with the cover that looks kind of like the art style used on the cover of Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. (http://www.amazon.com/Carmilla-Tragic-Love-Story-Sheridan/dp/1441436316/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1379130253&sr=8-6&keywords=carmilla)
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 13, 2013, 08:56:24 PM
8 bucks and you're missing four other stories...tsk tsk. The rest of the stories are less well known, but The Room in the Dragon Volant at least is really good.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 13, 2013, 10:42:03 PM
Excuse me princess for only being interested in trashy lesbian vampire books.

I've marathoned through Crysis: Legion, The Handmaid's Tale, the first three Earthsea books, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, Fahrenheit 451, and Wicked (a completely logical and thematically similar series of stories, obviously) in the past three weeks or so, and I still have Tehanu, 1984, and Jurassic Park lined up for Bookamania.  I'd like to take a break from reading in the near future.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 13, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
Unfortunately Carmilla is a rather classy lesbian vampire book. Though there are plenty of trashy ones out there...or so I'm told.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 14, 2013, 01:20:40 AM
Unfortunately Carmilla is a rather classy lesbian vampire book.

how does that even work?
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Beaumont_Belmont on September 14, 2013, 02:07:16 AM
It works because there's suggestion rather than wall-to-wall spank fuel. t's all about subtext, because in the 19th century you couldn't really put it in the open. Or I suppose you could, considering what some gothic literature includes (and Carmilla is very much an extension of gothic lit). It's not really easy to explain without spoiling the events of the story.

Also, that particular edition's branding of Carmilla as a love story raises some pretty unfortunate implications.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 14, 2013, 07:30:21 AM
Clearly a metaphor for our post-Twilight society.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Mooning Freddy on September 22, 2013, 09:55:58 AM
I was reading this book, and I tell you, it was horrible. It was all full of phonies. I swear to God, I never seen so many phonies in my stinkin life. It really made me depressed, but it was the kind of book that even though it makes you depressed, you need to go on reading. You would understand what I'm saying if you read. Anyway, that book was about some goddamn bastard kid who always disappoints his parents, and hates everybody but his sister and his dead brother. Of course he would say it's not true because he's a big phony. It kills me. All he does most of the time is horse around like a ten year old. He seriously needs to grow up. If you read it you'd want to puke. And the worst part is that the book just ends with the most stupid ending and you don't even know what in the hell happened to that kid. And it's not even like you care anyway because it's a stupid story but I still kinda like the boy. I don't know why. I'm crazy. I kill myself sometimes.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Ratty on September 22, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
I was reading this book, and I tell you, it was horrible. It was all full of phonies. I swear to God, I never seen so many phonies in my stinkin life. It really made me depressed, but it was the kind of book that even though it makes you depressed, you need to go on reading. You would understand what I'm saying if you read. Anyway, that book was about some goddamn bastard kid who always disappoints his parents, and hates everybody but his sister and his dead brother. Of course he would say it's not true because he's a big phony. It kills me. All he does most of the time is horse around like a ten year old. He seriously needs to grow up. If you read it you'd want to puke. And the worst part is that the book just ends with the most stupid ending and you don't even know what in the hell happened to that kid. And it's not even like you care anyway because it's a stupid story but I still kinda like the boy. I don't know why. I'm crazy. I kill myself sometimes.

The Catcher in the Rye? I dunno I really liked that book, but I haven't read it in about 10 years.

How did you like Carmilla by the way Super Waffle? I thought about reading it myself but decided to wait until October, so started on the (chronologically) first Drizzt novel "Homeland". I like the Drow, though as I've seen it pointed out it's kinda messed up D&D's most prominent Matriarchal society is pure manipulative evil, but kinda underwhelmed so far. Largely because the writing style comes across as a stale imitation of Frank Herbert. Maybe that's due to the worldbuilding and Icewind Dale is better?
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Flame on September 22, 2013, 11:04:26 AM
Basically, if you want to read Dracula, don't expect Castlevania. it's a very drawn out sort of novel. Lot of journal stuff, and it's not all OOOH ACTION so much as "oh look they are tracking the count down"

If you've ever seen the Jesus Franco Dracula with Christopher Lee, that's a pretty close adaptation of the book, right up until the ending, where it just abruptly cuts to transylvania and kills the count in the most anticlimactic way possible. I guess they'd blown their budget on the castle shit in the beginning and Christopher Lee. To the point; the movie is boring past the Dracula stuff at the start. The book is similar. It's not fast paced at all. it's rather slow paced. But I liked it anyway. I don't personally mind slower paced books. hell, i read mystery novels. Like, Agatha Christie ones. those tend to have a slower pace.

Actually, if you want a more quicker paced Dracula adventure, read Sherlock Homes Vs Dracula. it's got the pacing of a Sherlock Holmes story, but Dracula in it as the antagonist. It even manages to fit itself into the original book's continuity.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 23, 2013, 06:26:02 PM
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1qQDtqg.jpg&hash=18bfcc3ed755f04a521b94370acc45c5)


I got a box today.  I wonder if it's my Carmilla book.


(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1ffEueF.jpg&hash=045c597107192deeff99973381eb0889)


Hey, did you guys just hear something?  I thought I heard the first few chords of Rie Fu's "I Wanna Go to a Place" playing faintly in the background or something.

Weird.  Whatever.


(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbBDWg8A.jpg&hash=ad544a89a5d6b70756833cb204f9007e)


oh.

Well at least I'll be occupied for a couple of hours, I guess.


(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQfRhULT.jpg&hash=0368030c671e7ff333c9baba471b697e)


But I did get this other box. 


(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQkYP4qU.jpg&hash=ffb8951c06322787db5a4b8d4759f97d)


oh hey wouldn't you know it.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 24, 2013, 01:05:24 AM
Unfortunately Carmilla is a rather classy lesbian vampire book.

Bullshit.  Carmilla bites like three different girls' boobs in the first half of the story alone.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Gunlord on September 24, 2013, 02:39:58 AM
Earthsea? I haven't read it, but I've heard of it. LeGuin is more highbrow than I thought you'd be interested in, waffle-kun.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 24, 2013, 04:32:53 AM
I really like the first three books.  But after reading Tehanu… ugh.  If this is any indication of how the other post-20-year-writing-lapse Earthsea books are written, I don’t think I’m going to be reading the rest of the series any time soon.

One, hardly anything of consequence happens in that mess.  There’s no reason for it to be the longest of the first four books given the threadbare plot it tries to focus on.  Hell, there's no reason for it to be longer than a brief epilogue to Farthest Shore.

Two, the entire thing comes off like Le Guin said to herself, “Well it’s been two decades since I’ve written about the Earthsea universe and my original teen audience is all grown up now, so now I’m going to re-invent Earthsea for mature adults.”  Except her concept of something aimed at mature adults amounts to in-your-face I’M TALKING ABOUT FEMINISM GET IT GET IT GET IT? social commentary and long passages of basically breaking the fourth wall.  It turns the series into a full-blown political manifesto.

There’s whole chapters where Tenar and Witch Whateverthefuckhernamewas do nothing but sit down and talk about men’s roles and women’s roles and men’s power vs. women’s power and oh my fucking god just get on with it.  And the really sad thing she was able to get the same point across when she was writing Tombs of Atuan in the 1970's in a way where it integrated into an actual plot with characters who act like rational human beings instead of walking political soapboxes.  That’s some George Lucas shit right there.

Third, that goddamn climax.  And I’m not even talking about the arguable Deus Ex Machina part.  That’s a completely different discussion and it’s actually one of my smaller complaints.  In the afterword, Le Guin was saying something about how she wanted to separate Aspen from Cob and tried to design him as a specifically anti-feminist womanizing motherfucker so he could clash with the book’s themes.  Yeah, you sure did differentiate them.  Cob was actually a memorable villain.  He was genuinely chilling.  He had his own kind of charisma going.  Farthest Shore’s entire apocalyptic tone, the dragons going nuts and eating each other, villagers succumbing the mass paranoia to the point of sacrificing babies on altars and stoning their local Wizards to death?  All of that shit was on Cob.  The entire book dealt with developing Cob.  And when they revealed he was obsessed with trying to break death itself, it was a throwback to Ged’s foolish youthful mistakes dicking around with portals in the first book.  It was a clever “If Ged had gone the other way…” type of idea.  The way he was written instantly gave him some interesting dynamics with Ged. 

And he’s Zombie Saruman for his final form.  I mean, come on.  Zombie.  Saruman.

Aspen is some completely undeveloped stock jackoff who functions as the book’s weak de facto villain after being in two random scenes, and he exists for no other purpose than to force the story’s shallow GURL POWR message across.


tl;dr:  I'm not angry Tehanu talks about feminism.  I'm angry that it deals with the topic in a completely hamfisted way while trying to be a sequel to other smarter books.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on September 24, 2013, 05:08:53 AM
You still need Tales from Earthsea and The Other Wind. Then you are done with the Earthsea saga.
I didn't like the novels since I found them too slow, and the plot too obvious. Well, I can't really complain much for a children's book. I liked the short stories from Tales of Earthsea best, maybe because the pace of the short stories is way faster than the novels, but I have to admit, without the background of the other books, I would be lost in the Tales.
If you hated Tehanu, I don't think you'll like The Other Wind, but that is just my opinion.

Nice! 1/100 Legend Gundam! I have the Strike Freedom, Destiny and a first edition Infinite Justice still waiting for me to build them. Ahaha...  ;D
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Super Waffle on September 24, 2013, 05:13:10 AM
I have the Strike Freedom

get out.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on September 24, 2013, 05:18:01 AM
get out.

ooohhhh.... someone's jelly~~ ♫♪‼
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Gunlord on September 24, 2013, 07:51:12 PM
I think that happens to a lot of authors, Waffle. You say it was written after a 20 year gap? A lot of times one's writing skins can really decline (even in regards to just one particular series) if they've stepped away from it for so long. T_T
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Super Waffle on September 24, 2013, 08:42:36 PM
A Wizard of Earthsea - 1968
Tombs of Atuan - 1970
The Farthest Shore - 1972
Tehanu - 1990

problem detected.

Also, Farthest Shore feels a LOT more like a proper final book than Tehanu did when it first came out.  Le Guin constantly talks about how she made everything up as she went along, and it shows, but Farthest Shore was definitely written in an END OF EPIC; IT WAS ALL LEADING TO THIS style and you can tell she wanted to get the fuck out of Earthsea at that point.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat
Post by: Ratty on September 24, 2013, 09:14:11 PM
And the really sad thing she was able to get the same point across when she was writing Tombs of Atuan in the 1970's in a way where it integrated into an actual plot with characters who act like rational human beings instead of walking political soapboxes.

Funny since I mentioned him in my last post here but, the only author I've ever seen do the character-as-political tract very well is Frank Herbert in the original Dune. Less so in the sequels, which descended into heavy navel-gazing. That's also the reason Dune is pretty much un-filmable, the characters are written in such a way that they aren't as interesting, or sometimes don't even make sense, without their dozens of pages of inner monologues and philosophizing. I've heard complaints similar to the ones you're making about Tehanu made about the Dune novels written by Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson, don't think I'll ever touch those things.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Super Waffle on September 26, 2013, 02:50:22 AM
Yeah but David Lynch made Dune hilarious.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Ratty on September 26, 2013, 10:52:19 AM
Yeah but David Lynch made Dune hilarious.

And incomprehensible. But hey, that's David Lynch. I like the visual design of a lot of the film though. Except for the fact that the Fremen (who are all about preserving every drop of moisture in the human body) walk around with their heads uncovered, and the dumb & ugly designs they gave the Bene Gesserit and Space Guild pilot (aka "that big stupid floating fish thing") the latter of which shouldn't even be IN the first Dune. But you're right if you watch it with someone who's never read the book it's a great "this is awful wtf am I watching" romp.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Super Waffle on October 01, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
I think I'm experiencing a lack of motivation toward reading Jurassic Park / 1984

I blame Tehanu.
Title: Re: Super Waffle's book chat / Gundam discussion
Post by: Ratty on October 01, 2013, 04:44:27 PM
I think I'm experiencing a lack of motivation toward reading Jurassic Park / 1984

I blame Tehanu.

Jurassic Park is a great pulpy adventure story, and the characters and events are different enough that it's worth reading if you've seen the movie. You should check it out it's a fast read.

I gave up on Homeland for the time being, just couldn't get that interested in Drizzt. Picked back up Jungle Tales of Tarzan, #6 in the series and the first short story collection, an interquel to the original book. It's ok so far, though definitely shocking in some of it's racism for a modern audience. Burroughs was often relatively progressive for his time but you really need to keep a historical perspective to enjoy some of these turn-of-the-century novels.

Personally it's hard for me to get upset or take it too seriously when the first story of the book is about Tarzan entering his teenage years and trying to woo a female ape, and the self doubt that wracks him when he does it. (He's not hairy! His teeth are too small and white!) Overall I'm liking the book more than Son of Tarzan, which focused on Tarzan's less interesting son, and it's definitely better than Beasts of Tarzan, which was dumb but not very fun.