Dracula notes

Since autumn of 2007 I have embarked upon the reading of classic novels... I'd read those typical of children before then, but with The Mayor of Casterbridge, I was gone and never looked back. I have since read War and Peace, a decent supply of Chekhov and O. Henry, The Master of Ballantrae by Robert Louis Stevenson, and I have the beginnings of a knowledge of poetry. I freely admit to meeting Waterloo with Henry James' The Ambassadors... I'm also in the process of reading my way through the Harvard Classics (which will give me a fine education, I'm sure) and have recently completed Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography.

This brings me up to date. My most recent conquest in this enjoyable campaign is Bram Stoker's Dracula.

When I picked this book up, I was expecting a rather dated Victorian potboiler. Trite, tame, tepid, turgid... I was pleasantly surprised to find it anything but.

Even if you've never read the book, and never seen even a clip from a film (which isn't very likely), chances are good you still know the Transylvanian Count. As a joke, if nothing else. He is simply iconic.

There is nothing deep about the novel. It's not a character-driven morality play, and it won't leave you with deep thoughts. It's meant as entertainment, and does its job very well. Told via journals (which Stoker does an admirable job of creating seperate voices for), it traces the story of Dracula as he moves to London and preys upon two virtuous, angelic young women - Lucy Westenra and her friend Mina Murray. A band of young men join forces to try and save the ladies, though it isn't until halfway through the book that they finally realise they're fighting vampires. This group consists of Jonathan Harker, Mina's fiance; Lord Godalming, the same for Lucy; Quincey Morris, an american; Dr. Seward, who runs an insane asylum; and the elderly Van Helsing, the shrewd professor with the broken english and cryptic advice...

This appealing cast is one of the most enjoyable things about the book, especially in regard to the movies. Whether it's Tod Browning or Hammer Horror, when adapted for the screen half the characters are ignored and the rest have their personalities all but removed. The films can't help themselves. They tamper with an excellent, very intricate plot; they simplify the narration; and those actions take away from the menace and dread Dracula should inspire. Truly I don't think I'll ever be able to watch another Dracula movie ever again.

The plot is the real draw. It can be divided into roughly four sections, and three of them are simply marvelous. For three quarters of the novel, there are so many small nuances (Renfield being the best example, and also the dead ship), so many tales within tales that the pages are turned frantically to see what's coming next. There's a surprising lack of the Count in these pages, and yet he permeates every occurence, a truly menacing, otherworldly villian.

Make no mistake, this is a gothic novel. At times it simply drips with atmosphere. Who would think the sight of the Count crawling out of a window could send a chill down your spine? The grotesque, the macabre, the bloodcurdling, the violent and the erotic all get their small moments in the spotlight.

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect book. In the last quarter, Drac goes on the run, and much of the suspense that had been so excellently maintained is lost in this turn of events. Subtlety also dwindles, replaced by relentless melodrama, and the characters wax poetic about their internal agonies. There's a death scene - rendered a little trite by overwrought last words and Mina's inability to express the proper emotion toward this event. (The journalistic style does present a few problems like that. These people are all too handy at remembering very long speeches and they write in a way to heighten drama)

So perhaps the novel suffers a bit from the standards of the time. But even there, some differences are noticable. Mina adheres to the standard Angel of the House ideal, yet appears as the strong-willed heroine, resourceful and intelligent. Her high-flown wording taxes credulity a bit, but she reminds me of a better Rose Maylie (Oliver Twist).

Well, despite the ending, the journey there is well worth it. An appealing cast, an excellent style of narration, a very well crafted plot... The prose did get stuffy at points, but for the most part, it was definitely an asset. Not very realistic (my mother, a medical transcriptionist, tells me Lucy's blood transfusions were hopelessly inaccurate), but it makes for a wonderful entertainment. I'm glad to have made its acquaintance.


I'll be reading Mark Twain (Pudd'nhead Wilson) and Emily Dickinson next. Current Harvard is The Journal of John Woolman.