Intrical: A Perfectly Cromulent Word?

A nonsense arrangement of sounds has entered the English language and is masquerading as a word. It arises not only in casual conversation, but in classrooms, business meetings, and in the lectures presented by brilliant men who ought to know better. The amalgam of syllables is "intrical."

As best as I can tell, the word speakers mean is "integral," which has several meanings, but the only definition to which I can attach the nonsensical "intrical" is "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic." The pronunciation of "integral" seems to have become confused with "intricate" (which OneLook.com defines as "highly involved or intricate," which is stupid because you cannot use a word in the definition of itself or the definition becomes self-referential to the point of being rendered meaningless and language collapses! Anyway, I have now removed the online reference from my links list).

"Intrical" is not a word, and we who care about language must not stand for it. We ignored "nucular" and it penetrated our government to the uppermost. We cannot allow the same thing to happen here. If someone uses it as a word, call them on it. If you noticed someone with a festering sore, would you ignore it out of decorum? No. It's dangerous and must be treated as such. Don't allow this cancer to destroy the integrity of language, or someday, you may hear the president talk about the collapse of linguistic "intricaty."

Thank you for your help. Tune in next time when I explain the difference between "jive" and "jibe." While your opinion of linguistic integrity may not dance to jazz music with mine, I doubt that's the message you mean to convey.

Life-changing books

I'm going to take a break from casting and ask a question that I hope generates a lot of thought and discussion, both here and among you and your literary acquaintances. What book was critical in the development of the way you now think? It may be a story, a philosophical text, a science book, anything. Any book, that is. And I don't mean Book, either. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Vedas - those don't count. I don't want your over-arching meta-narrative, but a book that helped you make better sense of it. I'll answer, but first I'd like to hear your answers.

Renfield

I know that in the book, Renfield is small and slender, but I think Ray Winstone ("King Arthur," "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe") could portray a Renfield that is both refined and dangerous.

Dr. Jack Seward

What's more modern than a psy- chologist? I cannot abide the repression inter- pretation of Dracula, in case that isn't clear yet. I would cast Jeremy Northam ("The Net," "Possession") as Jack Seward.

Quincey P. Morris

Viggo Mortensen ("The Lord of the Rings," "A History of Violence") seems to me an obvious choice for Lucy's Texan suitor.

Arthur Holmwood, Lord Godalming

The role of Lucy's fiance would be played by Sean Bean ("The Lord of the Rings," "The Island"), whose first and last names should rhyme, but don't. He's an imposing figure who proved in "Troy" that he can pull off royalty.

Lucy Westenra

The influence of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is probably why I see Lucy Westenra with red hair, but I think it is striking in the victim of a vampire and recalls Edvard Munch's painting. Also, Kate Winslet ("Eternal Sunchine of the Spotless Mind," "Finding neverland") is gorgeous, and I want her in my movie.

Mina Harker

As Mina Harker, I'd cast Kate Beckinsale ("Van Helsing," "The Aviator"). She's beautiful, can play intelligent, and showed in "Underworld" that she can both oppose and be a part of supernatural evil.

Jonathan Harker

Yes, a shaved chimp would have made a more convincing Jonathan Harker than Keanu Reeves, but Harker is not much of a character (a testament to how truly bad an actor Reeves is that he couldn't pull it off). I think Christian Bale ("Little Women," "Batman Begins") could get inside of his head and show us who Jonathan Harker is and what he felt while trapped in Castle Dracula. Here is one area where I won't be a purist. Give Harker a personality.

Abraham Van Helsing

As the Dutch professor Abraham Van Helsing, I would cast Dutch actor Rutger Hauer ("Blade Runner," "Batman Begins"). Is this idea really so difficult? The American tendency to portray anyone foreign as English ("Troy," etc.) looked particularly foolish in Anthony Hopkins's ridiculous turn as Dracula's nemesis. And why is the Van Helsing character German in "Monster Squad"? Hauer looks the part, was born in the Netherlands, and is a great actor. Why hasn't he been cast in this role before?

Dracula

My choice for Count Dracula is Adrien Brody ("The Pianist," "The Village"). Read some of the descriptions of Dracula in the novel: thin face, hooked nose, sharp teeth. Brody needs minimal makeup to carry the role perfectly. With a Hungarian-born mother, Brody even has the right ethnicity for the count. I also think he can pull off being hypnotic without being attractive (not to say that he is not an attractive man, but he could play Dracula, who, I will say again, is not attractive!).

Casting Call: Dracula

Last time I cast Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Tonight, I will share my cast for a movie based on Dracula.

C.S. Lewis said that a myth is a story everyone has heard of, even if they can't remember reading it. By that definition, Dracula is most certainly a modern myth. And yet, adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel tend to fall short of the original masterpiece. Basically, they suck.

I'm not a purist, and I realize that part of its being a myth is its retelling and recreation. But it should still be good. Bela Lugosi wasn't bad, but films have come so far, and the 1992 version was an absolute travesty. Keanu Reeves with a British accent? Gary Oldman deserved a much better movie.

The Christopher Lee Hammer Dracula films were the first to set the story back in its original setting. In so doing, they changed the meaning of the story. At the time they were made, the Victorian era was seen as a backward, patriarchal system that was to be overcome. Enter Dracula, a suave seducer who frees women from this world and introduces them to sensuality. The common interpretation of Dracula as a story about repressed sexuality did not appear until after "Horror of Dracula" was released.

In Stoker's novel, Dracula is an ancient evil who is opposed by utterly modern men. And women. The group of friends who oppose Dracula use trains (a recent invention), victrolas, and typewriters. While the image of the female secretary has become stereotypical, when typewriters were invented, they were seen as a tool for female liberation. Suddenly, women who could type were welcome into the male dominated workforce. Mina not only types all of the journals, but she memorizes the train schedules and eventually puts them in contact with Dracula. In fact, the most fatal error the group commits is leaving Mina out of their confidences because she's a woman. Dracula is about men and women as equals opposing ancient evil that seeks to kill, not seduce.

My "Dracula" would be set in the early 1900s, but would establish the historical context in a way that portrays the progressive nature of the heroes who are still willing to rely on faith as the only way to overcome evil.