Is he? I thought Van Helsing was the protagonist in the Dracula films ... Dracula was the bad guy.

 

But you're right (and so is Baley) anti-heroes are just as valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on how you look at it. Dracula is doing what is natural for him, to survive, what is bad about that? Van Helsing antagonizes Dracula because of his faulty belief that Dracula is evil, even though Dracula is only doing what comes natureal to him.

 

Van Helsing is the protagonist here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On the basis that the protagonist of a story is always the one who goes through dramatic events that changes the character's life, I would disagree with both of you. The protagonist of Dracula (Stoker's novel) is Mina. She's one who ends up being a very different person than she started out as, while neither van Helsing nor Dracula changed their perspectives much and ended up as the characters they began as (except for Dracula being really dead instead of undead...).

 

van Helsing is more like Gandalf in LOTR - he is a powerful and knowledgable helper, but not the protagonist. Dracula is the villain and a device for evil. We don't know, but it doesn't matter - he does evil things, and so he's evil. Besides, I find Dracula to be more effective as a villain if he remains beyond our comprehension (and yes, that means I hated Coppola's flick )

Protagonist

One who takes the leading part in a drama; hence, one who takes lead in some great scene, enterprise, conflict, or the like

 

Antagonist ; opposing; counteracting

 

 

I usually take the protagonist as the good guy and the antagonist as the bad guy.

 

So in Dracula protagonist Van Helsing antagonist Dracula.

Edited March 5, 200619 yr by ShadowPaladin V1.0

Is he? I thought Van Helsing was the protagonist in the Dracula films ... Dracula was the bad guy.

 

But you're right (and so is Baley) anti-heroes are just as valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on how you look at it. Dracula is doing what is natural for him, to survive, what is bad about that? Van Helsing antagonizes Dracula because of his faulty belief that Dracula is evil, even though Dracula is only doing what comes natureal to him.

 

Van Helsing is the protagonist here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the basis that the protagonist of a story is always the one who goes through dramatic events that changes the character's life, I would disagree with both of you. The protagonist of Dracula (Stoker's novel) is Mina. She's one who ends up being a very different person than she started out as, while neither van Helsing nor Dracula changed their perspectives much and ended up as the characters they began as (except for Dracula being really dead instead of undead...).

 

van Helsing is more like Gandalf in LOTR - he is a powerful and knowledgable helper, but not the protagonist. Dracula is the villain and a device for evil. We don't know, but it doesn't matter - he does evil things, and so he's evil. Besides, I find Dracula to be more effective as a villain if he remains beyond our comprehension (and yes, that means I hated Coppola's flick )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Granted.

 

But I never read Mr Stoker's novel, so I was unaware of the Mina character and her protagonist journey. I was basing my judgement on the films that I have seen.

 

protagonist

n noun

1 the leading character in a drama, film, or novel. ⇒a prominent figure in a real situation.

2 an advocate or champion of a cause or idea.

 

ORIGIN

C17: from Greek protagonistes, from protos 'first in importance' + agonistes 'actor'.

http://www.answers.com/topic/protagonist

 

Another perspective on the term. I can't find any definitions that go beyond the "main character" of the story. Though this definition comments that it's seen use as a plural since 1671.

 

The Greek history seems to mean the lead character of the play (which I would consider the main character of a story as well).

 

 

None of the English classes I have ever taken have ever indicated that the protagonist is defined as the person that goes through the biggest change. I'm not sure how prevalent Mina is in the story, but I would be surprised if she was focused on more than Dracula or Van Helsing.

Edited March 5, 200619 yr by alanschu

Isn't the book told from her perspective?

There are different diary entries for different characters.

 

Although the protagonist/antagonist relationship would clearly be Van Helsing and Dracula.

Isn't the book told from her perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The genius of Dracula is that the entire thing is written as diary entries by the various characters. From the very beginning they talk about how they've compared notes, and they can't really believe all that they have written, but just chosen present it as is. It's a very compelling literary trick by Stoker to make his own characters doubt the events of the story just as much or more so than than the reader will.

 

I know everybody's seen the films and nobody's read the book, but I do advice it. Dracula is a classic for a reason, and it's not just because it's a good excuse for gory horror. Heck, Dracula didn't even have fangs until Christopher Lee put them on. Try watching Browning's 1933 version of Dracula with (in my opinion the best Dracula) Bela Lugosi. There are no fangs anywhere.

Bela Legosi's Dead

[by Bauhaus]

 

White on white

translucent black capes

back on the rack.

Bela Lugosi's dead.

The bats have left the bell tower,

the victims have been bled,

red velvet lines the black box.

 

Bela Lugosi's dead.

Undead Undead Undead.

 

The virginal brides

file past his tomb,

strewn with time's dead flowers,

bereft in deathly bloom,

alone in a darkened room

the count.

 

Bela Lugosi's dead.

Undead Undead Undead.

 

Oh Bela, Bela's undead.

Big Trouble in Little China

 

One of my favorite John Carpenter films, depsite its unusual synopsis. There are some great funny moments and action scenes. The Three Storms kick ass.

Isn't the book told from her perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The genius of Dracula is that the entire thing is written as diary entries by the various characters. From the very beginning they talk about how they've compared notes, and they can't really believe all that they have written, but just chosen present it as is. It's a very compelling literary trick by Stoker to make his own characters doubt the events of the story just as much or more so than than the reader will.

 

I know everybody's seen the films and nobody's read the book, but I do advice it. Dracula is a classic for a reason, and it's not just because it's a good excuse for gory horror. Heck, Dracula didn't even have fangs until Christopher Lee put them on. Try watching Browning's 1933 version of Dracula with (in my opinion the best Dracula) Bela Lugosi. There are no fangs anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The book is one of my all-time favs. Much better then the movie.

Isn't the book told from her perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The genius of Dracula is that the entire thing is written as diary entries by the various characters. From the very beginning they talk about how they've compared notes, and they can't really believe all that they have written, but just chosen present it as is. It's a very compelling literary trick by Stoker to make his own characters doubt the events of the story just as much or more so than than the reader will.

 

I know everybody's seen the films and nobody's read the book, but I do advice it. Dracula is a classic for a reason, and it's not just because it's a good excuse for gory horror. Heck, Dracula didn't even have fangs until Christopher Lee put them on. Try watching Browning's 1933 version of Dracula with (in my opinion the best Dracula) Bela Lugosi. There are no fangs anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that makes it a multi-perspective narrative: multi-protagonist. Assuming the subjects of the diary entries are the writers.

Isn't the book told from her perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The genius of Dracula is that the entire thing is written as diary entries by the various characters. From the very beginning they talk about how they've compared notes, and they can't really believe all that they have written, but just chosen present it as is. It's a very compelling literary trick by Stoker to make his own characters doubt the events of the story just as much or more so than than the reader will.

 

I know everybody's seen the films and nobody's read the book, but I do advice it. Dracula is a classic for a reason, and it's not just because it's a good excuse for gory horror. Heck, Dracula didn't even have fangs until Christopher Lee put them on. Try watching Browning's 1933 version of Dracula with (in my opinion the best Dracula) Bela Lugosi. There are no fangs anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that makes it a multi-perspective narrative: multi-protagonist. Assuming the subjects of the diary entries are the writers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It also makes the villain the focus of the story, not the "hero/es".

Edited March 6, 200619 yr by astr0creep

If the antagonist is the focus of the story, then they are no longer the antagonist, but the protagonist! :D

Yeah, Astro, what did you mean by that comment?

Fixed!