#crocordile

oh man, there was a post going around a while ago that expressed really well some of my thoughts + feelings but...I don't feel like looking for it right now, I'm lazy, it's out there somewhere.

I think ultimately what it comes down to, though, is that I feel the same way about it that I do about most generic writing advice, which is to say 'it has its uses, sure, but as soon as it becomes pithy and universally applicable I start twitching.'

so like...similarly to things like "don't use adverbs!" or "don't use passive voice!" I'm like...okay, but there's so many excepts that I can think of so easily. there are times when telling instead of showing is valuable, or maybe where it's necessary. there are times when telling instead of showing can be a stylistic choice.

I get the thrust of what the phrase is trying to say, I guess? which is to say, I think the point of it is, more or less, "if you are expressing something in your writing make sure that it is present in some way outside of simply stating that it is."

but I think the way it gets wielded as this...pithy phrase that's kind of a cudgel, across the board, without much explanation of what's meant or why it's important or when it's useful, and when and why you can break the 'rule', it ceases to be very helpful as writing advice. I heard 'show don't tell' all the goddamn time as an early writer and nobody really bothered to tell me what it meant.

I think there are two things I need from writing advice: recognition that no advice is truly universal, and an explanation of why this is important. especially that last part, because if you know the why them you can also get into the why not, if that makes sense.

which I know isn't a fun short phrase that you can use as a heading but sometimes I feel like nothing worth saying can be said in a pithy phrase. maybe I'm just biased because I'm incapable of being pithy 90% of the time

Oh, this is the best ask, thank you! I love talking about this.

I always say that these are the five Dracula movies which will give you the clearest sense of the arc of adaptation the story has taken over time:

Nosferatu (dir. F.W. Murnau, 1922)

Dracula (dir. Tod Browning, 1931)

Dracula/Horror of Dracula (dir. Terrence Fisher, 1958)

Dracula (dir. John Badham, 1979)

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

However, this is not the same as a list of my favorites! I think that all of those are pretty essential viewing for a comprehensive understanding of the world of Dracula adaptations, even though I virulently hate the Coppola, and would happily bestow on you all the permission needed not to waste your time on it, despite it being tremendously influential.

My alternative list of weird personal favorite Dracula adaptations aside from the above (Murnau and likely Badham’s films would make their way onto a comprehensive list of my favorites) would be the following:

Nosferatu (dir. Werner Herzog, 1979) - my first Dracula, my favorite Dracula, and also my favorite film period. Watch it watch it watch it.

Drácula (dir. George Melford, 1932) - made on the same sets as the Browning film, with Spanish-speaking actors who came in and filmed after the cast of the English version were done, this film as a fascinating comparison to the iconic Browning/Lugosi film, and better done in almost every way, solving many of the English version’s plot holes.

Count Dracula (Jesús Franco, 1970) - Franco was a Spanish B movie director who made tremendously trashy films but also made some inspired casting choices. He lured Christopher Lee into playing Dracula again for this by promising him the chance to actually say some of the speeches from the books (Hammer films never let him do this), and somehow also got Klaus Kinski to play a visionary wordless Renfield. The movie itself is a mess, but how can you care?

Dracula (dir. Bill Eagles, 2006) - this is a very odd BBC film that changes the plot around dramatically but somehow still retains the essence of many the characters, who are charmingly cast, especially Lucy, Mina, and Jack. It’s weakened by a really badly played Dracula, but is a lot of fun for fans of the book.

If you want to go into the depths of the weirdness, I recommend you try:

Blood for Dracula (dir. Paul Morissey, 1974) - this Warhol-influenced oddity is impossible to truly describe; it’s full of strangely placed (but sometimes intensely hilarious) humor, very graphic sex scenes, and just...strangeness. Warning that there are some very weird and rather tasteless sexual assault scenes, but if you’re up for the weirdness, it is not to be missed.

Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary (dir. Guy Maddin, 2002) - this is the silent film ballet Dracula. It doesn’t always work, but it is certainly going for something.

I have not yet managed to see Dracula in Istanbul or this apparently crazy Czech film called Jonathan (in which, according to my reading, the vampires are a metaphor for capitalism), so cannot speak to those.

As for what can be skipped...you will miss out on very little if you skip Van Helsing, Dracula 2000, Dracula Untold (which is not even really a Dracula adaptation proper), or the newest BBC Dracula. 

I admit to getting the 1968 Mystery and Imagination Dracula, the 1974 Dan Curtis/Jack Palance Dracula, and the 1977 Louis Jourdan Dracula confused at times, but there is good reason for that; none of them is especially exciting or original, though each do have their good moment (and their fans, who I hope I am not too sorely offending here!). If you are choosing one of those three, I would go with the 1977; Louis Jourdan gives an interestingly understated performance, and they have some interesting Renfield-Mina interaction that other versions don’t have.

Once you watch The Horror of Dracula, you’ll have a sense of whether or not you like the Hammer film style, and you should know from there whether you want to watch the rest of them. 

Hm ... MP and P&P are definitely the closest for me, with MP inching ahead (though I subjectively enjoy P&P more), so the overall differences in quality are pretty slight IMO.

But the first thing I think of is that quote from Austen, when she was worrying about her beloved niece’s reaction to P&P. She said, “Her liking Darcy and Elizabeth is enough, she might hate all the others if she would.” I think that attitude is kind of ... apparent, in P&P? It’s the Elizabeth and Darcy show. There are lots of other characters with clear personalities, of course, but their arcs are limited (if they can be termed as arcs at all) and pretty much always in service to Elizabeth’s, Darcy’s, or the Elizabeth/Darcy A-plot. It makes it focused and quick-paced, but also a bit less rich to me apart from Elizabeth and Darcy themselves.

In MP, though, the characterizations are much more nuanced across the board, I think. I know people disagree w/ me on this, but I’d argue that Fanny is no less complex a character than Elizabeth or Darcy, but when you look at e.g. Caroline Bingley vs Mary Crawford, Mary is just incomparably more compelling and complex (I’m partial, of course :P). Henry is complicated enough that there isn’t necessarily a clear Wickham figure (if it’s him, he’s also very much more compelling). The worst character in MP is probably Mrs Norris, and her brand of evil seems much more powerful and piercing to me than Wickham’s (which is super bad, but also very generically so). 

omg. ok

aeron

BARB

i would if i had a better handle on basics so i could make judgements about which ideas and theories are bullshit and which ones aren’t!! for language origins especially every single idea is like, ‘CRITICISMS: GROUP X AND Y THINKS THIS GROUP Z IDEA IS GARBAGE’ and ‘agreed upon’ ‘consensus’ is surprisingly scarce

aww ty, that’s nice to say. Let’s see if I can deliver on non-narrative thoughts! (and already did 12, which you can find previously)

2. When do you think the climax of the show is?

So I’m actually coming back to answer this one second because I had no idea how to answer it. I don’t like thinking of stories in terms of rigid structures like this---rising action, climax, denouement, blah blah---because I always think of stories in a very character-first way and people’s lives just aren’t organized like that. I guess Swan Song is the climax of the larger arc of, you know, Sam and Dean As Vessels which was the initial story of the show. But the show has a lot of stories, and a lot of longer arcs that I think are more interesting and on-point than the literal plots. Like, the plot of Sam and Dean reckoning with their relationship troubles: that’s s8-10, and that’s as important a story arc to me as something half-assed like ‘what are the angels up to’. So... not to go on forever, but I think this is a semi-invalid question, I guess.

That said, a climax in my heart is definitely there isn’t anything, past or present, I’d put in front of you. It doesn’t fix things--there’s still lots of fallout after it--but it’s definitely a spike in my mental map of the show, haha.

35. Did you like Swan Song? Did you like it as an ending?

I like Swan Song fine. I Do Not Like the narration from Chuck, but other than that it has some great character moments, some stellar plot payoffs, etc. The scenes of Sam with Lucifer are just out of this world, and I have a tender alarming love for the bits where they’re coming into Detroit---Sam starting to drink the blood; Sam drugged up and furious and Dean following along behind, hating every second of it but supporting Sam’s play no matter what.