A pyramid was set up on the board, covered in note cards arranged by importance. On each card was a symbol from the novel Dracula. The class was broken down into 7 groups, each competing to have their cards placed on the pyramid. We were arranged in a circle having socratic seminar type arguments to decide what cards should be placed on the pyramid. In small groups we would pick which card on the pyramid we thought that we could out argue its importance with another group to have our card take its spot. Our teacher, Mr. O’Grady would serve as a judge and decide who made the stronger argument and that group would get to have their card on the pyramid.

In the Fall of my Senior year of High School, my instructor, Mr. O’Grady assigned the book Dracula to the class. There was no rubric for the essay to be completed at the end of the book. Like any other class we would have assigned readings and then discuss the book in class. However, unlike any other class I’ve ever been in there was no format to the in class discussions we held. We as the students of the class led the discussions and talked about what we found in the reading. At first I didn’t understand the purpose of teaching a class in that manner, it felt like a free block more than anything.

It wasn’t long before Dracula had become my favorite book. I was drawn deeper into the story than I had ever been before. At night I would curiously check outside my window one last time before going to sleep. Every time I looked in a mirror I would then look behind myself just to be sure. I truly felt that in a far off land this monster was alive. Making connections to the novel, being able to relate it to historical events and finding symbolism, especially religious symbols came far easier than had ever before. I believe that this is true not because I was older and a smarter reader than before, but because I immersed myself in the novel, something I had never done before.  Conveying my thoughts on paper, something I normally struggled with, became simple and easy to do.

The essay I was tasked with writing had no formal subject. There was a set size and due date, but no prompt to write on. I was given the autonomy to pick something I found interesting, explore it, and then present my thoughts on the issue. I decided to write about the balance between Christian and satanic symbols in the novel. Personally I wouldn’t be able to recognize many religious symbols on my own, but when we discussed the novel in class I was able to feed off of my peers knowledge and then make my own opinions with there help. Never before had I listened to anyone else for guidance about what the text means. Listening to others opinions and ideas and then debating with them in socratic seminars, only furthered my knowledge of the novel and let me realize a whole new method of learning.

Due to the nature of the assignment, being a book report, it fell into my strong suit as a writer. In high school most of my instruction as a writer came from my History classes instead of in an English or Writing class. Almost all of my writing from freshman to junior year came out of my history classes. I was confident writing my essay. I knew the formula and I knew how to look for information, find it, and then plug it in to support my arguments. It was the first time I can remember taking curriculum learned in one class and then applying it so readily in another.

Every class for the duration of the unit was a socratic seminar. I found that by asking questions and being asked questions about key concepts of the book forced me to look deeper than what I had done in my original read of the text. I had to dig through the pages of the novel and extract quotes and lines to support my arguments. Other times a student would ask questions about certain paragraphs and through their own questions I gained a better sense of knowledge about the book because they brought up issues that I had not even considered before.

This was a painstaking process. I could have read the book in a little over a week but we spent about two months digging through the pages. In some class periods we would stay on the same page the entire time, ripping it apart to give new meaning to the text. The book took so long to finish that I had plenty of time to reflect on it and re-examine it. I came up with several different thesis and had many different opinions of the book by the time I had finished. What I now know is, I understand the novel extremely well and was prepared to write about it.

Eventually I decided to compare the moods portrayed when Van Hesling and Dracula would enter a room. Van Helsing, the famous vampire slayer kept religious texts by him and kept religious idols by his side. Dracula was often seen in the dark, and was always noted as untrustworthy and brought a cold aura with poor weather wherever he went. Their differences are highlighted when Van Helsing is attempting to save a young girl by blood transfusion. Blood in the novel was thought of as a sacred thing with many comparisons to be made to drinking the blood of Christ.  Dracula steals blood from his victims and turns their flesh into Vampire. Van Helsing attempts to save a young woman who has been having her blood stolen by Dracula, but in order to save the sanctity of her marriage Helsing will only allow her lover to donate blood.

The only regret that I had while I studied and wrote about Dracula is that I didn’t pay enough attention to my peer’s constructive criticism. I’m not sure if it was a factor of my own laziness, or just arrogance that I did not want to re-asses my opinion based on their remarks. Learning to take others constructive criticism and then re-write my work for clarity or for a deeper explanation is something that I need to improve upon. Whether it be by discussing my week points more with my peers to develop my own opinion or by re-reading the text to find out authors intent.

While reading this novel I found I need the help of others to truly divulge into a text. Without bouncing ideas off other people and being asked to think deeper and explain my own positions I am unable to dig deep enough into a novel to truly understand its meaning and to sympathize with its characters. When I am able to do this I am able to write at a far higher level with more intelligence and confidence on the subject in which I am writing about.