![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fantasy/SF Micro-essay #3: Dracula
Monday, August 20th, 2012 05:36 pm[The latest of my essays for Rabkin's course. Note how again I can't resist talking about prototypes.]
There was a time when fantasy and horror could be considered to be distinct genres. Despite the fact that by most definitions of fantasy, Dracula should be considered as much fantasy as The Lord of the Rings, we somehow feel that the latter is prototypical fantasy and the former, prototypical horror.
There are two reasons for this. The first concerns the defining feature of horror, namely the emotion it is designed to evoke; this is why Dracula is horror and Twilight is not. Stoker is at pains to build up an atmosphere of dread punctuated by moments of shock. Fantasy is not defined by the emotion it evokes, but we could say that a typical emotional response to fantasy is wonder; fear is employed peripherally.
The second reason concerns the world. While fantasy is not limited to invented worlds, so-called "low fantasy" is less representative of the genre, or at least was until recently. Stoker's use of scientific terminology (provided by Seward), technology (blood transfusion, the phonograph) and documentary "evidence" (letters, newspapers) creates a realistic and rationalistic world to set off the supernatural elements and make them more frightening. We see this juxtaposition clearly in modern horror films such as Poltergeist or The Blair Witch Project.
While Dracula fixed the centre of the supernatural horror genre, its modern successors have hauled it into the realm of fantasy, where vampires inspire wonder (or desire) more than horror, and inhabit a magical realm they often share with werewolves and even fairies.
There was a time when fantasy and horror could be considered to be distinct genres. Despite the fact that by most definitions of fantasy, Dracula should be considered as much fantasy as The Lord of the Rings, we somehow feel that the latter is prototypical fantasy and the former, prototypical horror.
There are two reasons for this. The first concerns the defining feature of horror, namely the emotion it is designed to evoke; this is why Dracula is horror and Twilight is not. Stoker is at pains to build up an atmosphere of dread punctuated by moments of shock. Fantasy is not defined by the emotion it evokes, but we could say that a typical emotional response to fantasy is wonder; fear is employed peripherally.
The second reason concerns the world. While fantasy is not limited to invented worlds, so-called "low fantasy" is less representative of the genre, or at least was until recently. Stoker's use of scientific terminology (provided by Seward), technology (blood transfusion, the phonograph) and documentary "evidence" (letters, newspapers) creates a realistic and rationalistic world to set off the supernatural elements and make them more frightening. We see this juxtaposition clearly in modern horror films such as Poltergeist or The Blair Witch Project.
While Dracula fixed the centre of the supernatural horror genre, its modern successors have hauled it into the realm of fantasy, where vampires inspire wonder (or desire) more than horror, and inhabit a magical realm they often share with werewolves and even fairies.
