Poll: Dracula or Twilight?

[Bon_Clay]

Good question. I'd have to say being famous doesn't really interest me, and while I'd like to be rich it isn't my top priority. So I'd personally choose to have made something known for its quality and influence, so long as I was financially secure enough to get by in life at least.

I can definitely see why people would choose the rich and famous option, but the pride and satisfaction of the other option would be worth more to me than having superfluous amounts of money.

 

[mitchell271]

I'd prefer the Twilight option. Dracula is a great book and a rightly famous one. However, I had to read it for school and over-analyse it and that made me not want to read it at all. Then I read it on my own time and loved it.

I bring this up because if I made something that only became famous after I died, it would probably be picked while looking for symbolism, and I don't want that. I'm actually writing a book right now and it's made for the purpose of entertainment. Nothing more.

 

[StBishop]

I picked Twilight. I would use the money to better human kind in the way that (I think) art never can. Through Science!

 

[AlAaraaf74]

If I were passionate about writing, I would care more about my work becoming famous in history and less about the money I'd make if I were alive.

 

[mcnally86]

I'd like both to be honest. But I would go for substance and merit over cheap success.

I'd rather have something I did be called a classic after I died than a vapid waste of space while I was alive. But I'd still rather have it known as a classic while I live.

I agree why can't it be both? Make a bunch of cash on drivel and have a really good book that was overlooked until your death. But honestly this is why I can't right in the back of my head I am afraid of people judging me, that and anything I try hard on makes sense to me as I am writing it but reads like the ravings of a mad man. Maybe I should try to get something published someone will assume I knew what I was doing.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Honey, I Shrunk The Quote-

I'm sorry, but Twilight isn't about vampires, clearly. It's obvious to me that they must be FAIRIES.

I don't just vote Dracula. I vote any vampire that doesn't sparkle. Alucard in Hellsing, Castlevania, Legacy of Kain, Nosferatu (AKA Max Shrek), Bela Legosi, etc. Hell, Blade gets my vote.

 

[LiberalSquirrel]

I saw this thread title and immediately thought, "Oh, it's okay Mr. Stoker, they don't really mean to compare your awesome novel to Twilight." And, lo and behold, the thread proves me right.

Thank you. =)

Back on topic, I would far prefer to write something that is actually deep and meaningful, even if it is only recognized after my lifetime. I think I'd feel a bit ashamed of myself as a writer if I ever churned out something like Twilight for a quick buck.

You'd really feel ashamed? There's nothing wrong with writing vapid works meant purely for entertainment. I think providing someone a world to lose themselves in for few moments is a noble thing, no matter the lack of artistic merit or thematic depth.

And I like money.

It's not that I don't want to write anything without some so-called "deeper artistic merit." I like purely entertaining works (and money) just as much as the next girl. It's just that I don't agree with a lot of underlying themes in Twilight. The major one being the "it's okay, and in fact very romantic, if your boyfriend watches you while you sleep, controls a good part of your life, follows you everywhere without your knowledge, and makes it so that you feel like killing yourself if he ever leaves you." Thus, if I wrote something like that, and marketed it as some great love story in order make myself some money, I'd be ashamed.

Oh, I didn't know Twilight was like that. I haven't read it. I haven't read Dracula either, though. I've never been into vampires.

Yeah, it's a bit scary if you actually read it. I read Twilight just to see what all the fuss was about and... was promptly rather creeped. And Dracula has been one of my favorite novels since I was around 16. (Funnily enough, this was when Twilight was first getting big.)

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I'd rather leave a lasting legacy on the world long after I'm gone than be a flash in the pan one day and forgotten as soon as the next one comes along, even if it means I'm not rich, or famous during my own lifetime.

 

[klaynexas3]

art is for the sake of art, not for the sake of money. then again, calling twilight art is awful generous. i'd rather write a million books that mean nothing to the world, but i felt like they were great works of art and were from my soul, than write one shitty book for the money. i hate it if someone sells out. if an artist does something simply because they know it will be big now, then they are nothing more than sell outs and should never be called an artist ever again. if an artist does something that expresses something either about them or the world or just to create a whole new world that they wish existed and it all came from within them and not for the sake of money, only then are they a true artist, and with Dracula as the example, it has a better chance of standing the test of time. you write for now, it will die when times move on. you write for the sake of writing, you're book will have a better chance of lasting the harsh tests of time

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I would love to say dracula. But damn it i want a good life and not a famous death.SO i write the wretched crap

 

[Rastrelly]

OMG, someone's voting for Twilight! How? HOW?! I don't get it. It's a friggin' soap opera! No, it's even worse! It's a DUMB soap opera! With unnatural feelings, unnatural and foolish characters, uninventive plot!.. What else to say. OMG.

PS Yes, it means I'd better die poor then unremembered.

 

[Thaius]

As much as I'd love having lots of money, I'd go with Dracula. It's had a huge impact on the world of literature and storytelling in general and more fantasy mythos than I could possibly count, and I'd rather have that sort of impact on storytelling than be forever remembered as the one who brought living hell on an entire literary genre.

Also, Twilight isn't about vampires. It's about sparkly gits who happen to drink blood. That's all. I may not be able to judge the quality of the books, 'cause I haven't read them, but I can sure as heck judge the series for its horrific perversion of everything on which it's based.

 

[Arehexes]

Neither because I don't write books.

 

[klaynexas3]

-Honey, I Shrunk The Quote-

I'm sorry, but Twilight isn't about vampires, clearly. It's obvious to me that they must be FAIRIES.

I don't just vote Dracula. I vote any vampire that doesn't sparkle. Alucard in Hellsing, Castlevania, Legacy of Kain, Nosferatu (AKA Max Shrek), Bela Legosi, etc. Hell, Blade gets my vote.

fuck yes, i thought i was the only one that played legacy of kain or read hellsing. those are true vampires indeed. this world needs the anti twilight to come out after breaking dawn 2 has come out. if they make a new vampire movie that's good soon enough, it might be able to blot out this horrible era of fairies with vampire complexes

 

[Bleedingskye]

I"m just flat out tired of vampires...there really is only so much you can do with them, and I'm pretty satisfied with what's been done so far. Obviously there's tons of ass to go along with it, but I think we need to move on to a new monster. Also done with zombies...i really don't understand why they're so popular at the moment.

OT: I want my fame and money now so that I can invest time and effort into a worthy piece of getting famous after my death.

 

[Kair]

Writing twilight would be egocentric.

Egocentrism is a scourge on Humanity.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

A vastly larger amount of people enjoyd twilight than dracula.

If the point of a book is to give as much entertainment to as many people as possible (which it isn't), twilight is a much better book than dracula.

Plus, you know. Money.

 

[gabmed]

I'd rather Twilight.

Twilight Sparkle. <3

Allright, but seriously now. I can make impact in a lot of way, but money in only a few. Twilight all the way (Yeah, sure, the series suck, but hey, if you can grasp 90% of retarded pre-teen female nerds, you're good to go for the rest of your life!).

 

[Dags90]

I picked Twilight. I would use the money to better human kind in the way that (I think) art never can. Through Science!

Plenty of actors go between indie films and big Hollywood movies, don't see any reason authors can't do the same. Make up a pen name if you need to.

I'm also going with the "I could give two shits about what happens after I'm dead because I'll be fucking dead" crowd.

 

[David Hebda]

The time period in which it was written has more to do with it then anything else I think. It took so long to print books and get them to places that had people that could both afford them and read them. Its a whole different world now with books online, and instant notification and distribution to thousands of places all around the world.

As per your question I would rather make an enduring monument to my greatness then a POS that gave me money.