Ah, “Dracula”. Is there a single book in the English language the more people know better? Well, actually, yes, because the truth of the matter is people who think they KNOW everything there is to know about the story probably have never read the book cover to cover. I realized this about half way in. So much our culture “knows” about vampires and Dracula having nothing to with the text of the book, but originate from Hollywood.
There’s not a whole lot of reason to go into the plot too heavily. The basics have been done more or less in the movies: English real estate agent goes to Transylvania to sell a house in England to a mysterious count, Dracula. Dracula is a vampire, intent on finding new blood abroad. What follows is a mostly terrifying (but occasionally slow and dull) battle between good and evil, modernity and superstition, and faith vs. magic.
However, “Dracula” is nowhere near a perfect novel. Bram Stoker, much like his contemporaries, tended to overwrite. In some instances, this approach works, particularly in Jonathan Harker’s experiences in Castle Dracula. Here, Stoker is able to convey to the reader (even those familiar with the story from the films) Harker’s genuine confusion and horror as Dracula’s behavior quickly shifts between cordial and terrifyingly violent. The encounter over the mirror which doesn’t reflect Dracula’s reflection, Harker’s near attack by the count’s bride (and the surprising erotic overtones), the feeding on infants, and Harker’s discovery of Dracula in his coffin, blood on his lips, as he lays “like some filthy leech” are vividly drawn and thoroughly frightening.
The Essay on Bram Stokers Dracula
... very well in conveying the main idea in the book. For example, Count Dracula was described as a noble of the Magyar ... from England named Jonathan Harker is sent by a businessman to meet with an old Count named Dracula at his castle located ... command animals and elements with the wave of his hand. Harker escapes the castle but the Count has devised an intricate ...
Other excellent moments include the log of the ship Dracula arrives on (pasted, inexplicably into Mina Harker’s journal).
The desperation of the captain as his crew is picked off by some monster is truly haunting.
Also memorable is the character of Renfield, the lunatic who somehow Dracula reaches out to. His need to eat his way up the food chain is darkly humourous and grotesque.
Sadly, not everything about the novel is this well done. Abraham Van Helsing is a Dutch character. Stoker wildly overwrote his speech patterns and accent. Consequently, he often seems to be more comedy relief than the wise leader of the band of hunters (definitely an improvement in the films).
Likewise, Quincey Morris, a Texan, often flirts with stereotype, but Stoker is able to keep the character serious, if not terribly well developed (which is probably why Quincey has only appeared in one or two films, despite his pivotal role in Dracula’s demise).
The various group meetings to discuss a plan of action and exchange knowledge often take on the quality of a superficial prayer meeting.
What amazed me was how much we take for granted about the Dracula-myth was NOT borne out by the novel. Dracula seems comfortable wandering out in the daylight without bursting into flame.
Still, on the whole Stoker succeeds. The novel is a rewarding one, and, despite its age, actually offers some genuine chills. If it’s not perfect (which it’s not), it virtues greatly outshine its flaws.
