"Opium! dread agent of unimaginable pleasure and pain!"

Last week I read Thomas de Quincey's 1822 autobiography, Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. It was an interesting read, but not terribly captivating. De Quincey began with the story of his life up to his first encounter with opium, then continued with a description of the highs and lows of the following years, during which he became thoroughly dependent and addicted. The most interesting part was the description of how he weaned himself off of the drug. In the notes, he showed a series of tables documenting the number of drops of opium he consumed each day, and I found it fascinating to see how the drops drastically changed in number of the course of just a few days. Here's an example, the fourth week in his attempted breaking of the addiction:

"Fourth Week
Mond. July 15 ...  76
16 ...  73.5
17 ...  73.5
18 ...  70
19 ... 240
20 ...  80
21 ... 350"

Wikipedia says "The book
was quite controversial,
particularly because open
discussion of addiction and other
"moral faults" was taboo before
and during the Victorian era.
De Quincey gave one of the first
literary accounts of the effects
of the drug in a time where the
drug's negative side-effects were not well understood."

Overall, an interesting read. I'd like to go back and read a
version with more explanatory notes than the copy I
downloaded from Project Gutenberg. Hopefully a more
thorough explanation of some of his references will keep
me more engaged with the text.

Now I'm working on Machiavelli's The Prince, and hopefully I'll soon
start Venus in Furs, thanks to a recommendation from hkonz.
I've also got the tail-end of a documentary on opium use
in America to finish... interessant.

Later, gators.

"Then the horror overcame me, and I sank down unconscious."

When I was a senior in high school I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for the first time. While that novel remains more staunchly in the Romantic genre than Dracula, the same sense of Gothic horror and Victorian drama pervades them both, making the latter novel just as gripping as the former.

(Warning: spoilers) Dracula, set up as a string of letters, diary entries, and correspondences between the characters, outlines the events surrounding the terrible involvement of Mr. Jonathan Harker in the sale of English estates to a one Count Dracula. I won't go into too much plot summary since the book is 400 pages long, but the major plot line is this: Mina, Harker's wife, has been "infected" with the blood of the vampire, thusly beginning the transformation of herself into the same. The characters must kill Dracula in order to save Mina (lest she end up like "poor, dear Lucy"). This, of course, is the climax of a series of very strange events that the characters experience by the coming of the Count to England. Here's a better plot summary, just in case. And here's another.

Of course, the book was a very entertaining read. I love the 19th Century language and find it fascinating how a novel such as Dracula was published in 1897. The beginning was excellent: the portions from Harker's diary describing his initial ventures to the Count's mansion were captivating and exciting. After Lucy's death, the book lagged a bit, describing tons of waiting around and making of preparations to journey again to the Carpathians. The ending of the book was a little disappointing, but I suppose that's because my modern sensibilities want more action and want it before the last two pages. However, the subtle twists and turns in the plotline and the changing points of view kept me reading when major plot developments were lacking.

I liked the numerous characters and points of view. There were three major contributors to their respective diaries: Dr. Seward, Harker, and Mina. Van Helsing, Lucy, and the others made small contributions as well. Van Helsing was the most interesting character for me, interesting because little of his personal history is divulged. I wonder what he really felt about Mina- sometimes, from the way he spoke, I couldn't help but wonder if he was romantically attracted towards her. This question was raised in the 1992 film version, as well, which is a fairly accurate version... except for the whole Princess Mina in love with the Count bit.


Back to the novel. I didn't like the weakness and dependence of the women, of course, but this I've come to expect in novels from the time period (and others before and after). One example: Lucy and Mina are the only characters weak enough to be infected by the Count, but Jonathan, despite being trapped in the castle with three female vampires for an extended period of time. Another: it is because of the cleverness of Mina that the men are able to intercept the Count. Then again, this is attributed to the fact that "she has man's brain."


Is this interesting to you? Should I keep writing like this, or try another approach? Maybe not just one entry at the end of a book? Or up with the funny and down with the literariness?



I'm now reading Confessions of an English Opium-Eater by Thomas de Quincey and I'd like to try some opium.