 |
| Who's this dude? |
That guy would be Bram Stoker, the author of Dracula. Because think just how many books, movies, TV shows, etc. that one book has spawned. Especially in the last decade when just about everything has been vampires this and vampires that. All that stuff--Twilight, The Vampire Diaries, Interview With the Vampire, etc. etc. ad nauseum--all stems from that one book that came out at the end of the 19th Century.
One book that let's face it wasn't as hugely successful as Twilight and might have been doomed to obscurity if not for those newfangled things called moving pictures. Because first there was Nosferatu (an unlicensed knock-off of the book) and then in 1931 came the first Dracula with Bela Lugosi. From then it was on: sequels, reboots, crossovers, etc. That in turn spawned more movies, books, comics, eventually TV shows, etc.
And you might say there were vampire stories before Stoker came along. Sure, vampires existed, just like zombies existed before George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. But just like Romero did, Stoker was the one who really codified the whole vampire thing. He brought together the rules about sunlight, garlic, crucifixes, etc that a lot of stories later used. Or that later when people tried to be clever said those things didn't apply, but it was still a response to what Stoker did.
Sure Shakespeare and Jane Austen have had a huge impact too, but just think of all the stuff that wouldn't exist if Stoker hadn't written that book (largely while the theater company he worked for was on break) about 115 years ago? We'd probably be better off for it.
As a final note, after I read Dracula last October I watched Nosferatu, Dracula, and Bram Stoker's Dracula and none of them are really all that faithful to the novel. The latter of course is hilariously ironic because they used Stoker's name in the title and then almost completely disregarded Stoker's work. If he could see what he's wrought, Stoker would probably feel a bit like Pandora after she opened the box.
Going that route, though, I'd have to say that it's Samuel Richardson. He wrote what's considered the first English novel (although not the very first novel, it was the first novel that amounted to anything, and he is sometimes called the "father of the novel") with Pamela.
ReplyDeleteMeh. That guy's way too obscure. It's like saying the first guy to create a symphony is the most influential musician ever but no one remembers who that dude is, so fuck him.
DeleteI read the other day that Rowling is now the most-read author in the history of the printed word. That's a stat worth digesting slowly.
ReplyDeleteI've never actually read Stoker's work. I should make an effort to do so.
ReplyDeleteBram Stoker, even with Dracula, is pretty obscure. If you mention just his name to most people, they won't have a clue whom you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteEven with all the vampire stuff, I think Sherlock Holmes is still considered to have had the most works based on it. Either adaptations or characters based on him.
About Neil's comment: stats like that need to be done as percentages. It seems likely that more people have read Harry Potter than any other book because there's 7 of those books and more people are alive now than ever before.
ReplyDeleteAs for Stoker, I agree: he managed to cement our concept of vampires, the way Tolkien gave us elves and dwarves and Dickens gave us Christmas. I wonder what he would make of sparkly vampires?
Oh! Sparkly Vampires! That might just be the title of my next book!
DeleteVampires are popular now? Well, I like to think of it like society as a whole is getting them out of its system. I have seen an example or two about a Zombie type romance recently, is there anything folks won't try to make sexy?
ReplyDeleteI think from Stoker's expression in the photo he's looking into the future and is shocked!
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent analysis and there's no doubt that, as an author, he has had a profound impact on pop culture or perhaps superstition. I'm going to disagree though (you knew that I would) and say that Charles Darwin is more influential. His work on "The Origin of Species" and "The Theory of Natural Selection" has a more profound impact on my life and is the source material for the arguments that have raged ever since between creationists and evolutionists. His name is not only associated with his scientific work, but is dropped within context and discussion of such things as eugenics and social darwinism. So as profound as you may think Bram Stoker is (or for that matter J.K. Rowling or Jane Austen) I think that their work pales in both importance and relevancy to impact felt within our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking fiction. I probably should have mentioned that along with religious texts, which I would find to be fiction though many do not.
DeleteI'd find it hard to decide if Darwin is more influential than Einstein or any of that.
Great, Blogger is cutting off my bulldog's head! That's just brilliant.
DeleteGrumpy, I have nothing to add. I swear to god, every time I read one of Michael's damnably brilliant responses; I'm just left feeling inadequate.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post and I agree. I also laughed at this part.
ReplyDelete"We'd probably be better off for it."
I can only imagine Stoker's reaction to Twilight.