Throwback SF Thursday: Dracula by Bram Stoker

This was my second time reading Dracula.  The book benefits from the reread: I threw out my original review and started from scratch.  A few points still niggle at me, but the structure benefits from hindsight.  Stoker isn’t good at everything, but what he is good at he does as well as anybody.

The two major things I turned about on are the sharp shift from Transylvania to England and the epistolary form itself.  I continue to regard the epistolary form with deep suspicion, but I now realize Stoker uses it to great effect, wringing serious tension out of it and using it to drip-drip-drip foreshadowing with great care.  The form, then, is not unrelated to how I perceive the geographic shift on reread.  Jarring to be sure, but intentionally so.  And effectively so, at least the second time around.

The accents, though, remain terrible.  (It does crack me up that every working class stiff the characters encounter tries to squeeze a little beer money out of them.)

Dracula is a surprisingly good pulp story.  The usual suspects for its primary literary themes—sexuality, immigration—are strained.  The story, though, holds up just fine.  The real theme strikes me as simpler and more satisfying—less fruitful for freshman lecture halls and late-night weed-laced dorm room conversations.  It’s a theme Brad Thor would appreciate.  When a wolf circles, the sheep need sheepdogs.

I love Dracula.  I don’t find his dozens upon dozens of imitators nearly so compelling.  The initial portrayal is key.  He is human enough to be inhuman, to be cruel.  I prefer Stoker’s formulation of powers to the mix more commonly seen today.  Give me a vampire who can turn into a wolf and squeeze through a cracked window like a gholam![1]  A vampire should be an alpha predator.  A vampire should not sparkle, or even be sexy.

With Dracula, any sexual nature is stripped of its sexiness, leaving just the horror of sexual violence.  All indications are he prefers to prey on pretty women.  He is happy to leave Harker to his three female underlings.  He targets first Lucy, then Mina, and he is staring at a strikingly beautiful woman when Harker randomly encounters him on the streets of London.  When the men begin to move against him, he strikes not at them but at Mina.  His female underlings, like all predators, focus on the weak: before they are offered Harker, they are forced to subside on children.

Our heroes stand in sharp contrasts as paragons of manly virtue.  (And Stoker knows that when you need the manliest of men, better to skip over Britain’s more usual source in Scotland and go straight to Texas.)  Jonathan Harker, the striver from modest means, is the odd one out.  Mina and Lucy’s friendship might bring them together, but Arthur, Quincey, and Seward would hardly embrace him fully under normal circumstances.  He takes the preeminent role because sometimes having the most to lose makes all the difference in the world.  When it comes time to plant a kukri knife in a vampire’s face, who do you want swinging the blade—the old hand at hunting or the husband about to lose his wife?  Vampires are best hunted for reasons other than sport.  (Note that the four can play these roles because Stoker limits his version of Van Helsing to mostly dispensing plot-necessary knowledge.)

 

4.5 of 5 Stars.

 

Dracula isn’t the very first vampire in fiction, though.  Check out this post by PCBushi on Carmilla, a predecessor to Dracula.

 

[1] More accurately, the gholam squeezes through a cracked window like Dracula.

Advertisements

About H.P.

Blogs on books at Every Day Should Be Tuesday (speculative fiction) and Hillbilly Highways (country noir and nonfiction). https://everydayshouldbetuesday.wordpress.com/ https://hillbillyhighways.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Book Reviews, Horror, Throwback SF Thursday and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Throwback SF Thursday: Dracula by Bram Stoker

  1. pcbushi says:

    I’d like to reread this again someday. I’m sure I’ve forgotten many of its finer points, like the use of holy water I thought I remembered!

    One thing that comes across well in both Carmilla and Dracula is that vampires are vermin. And you’re right – they’re human enough to be inhuman. You could almost pity them, if they weren’t so horrible and evil.

    Carmilla was quite attractive in her story, though I don’t think she was nearly so old as Dracula, if that has any effect. And I think this makes sense. There are many predators that use their appearance to draw in prey.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Alex says:

    Great, fair review. It makes me want to reread it now too! You’re right that the epistolary form is effective in creating the creepy mood.

    Personally, this remains my favorite interpretation of the vampire myth, hands down. Of course, I’m yet to read Camilla.

    And excellent WoT reference.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Alexandra says:

    A great review of a classic. And like many, I haven’t read this one since school. So long over due for a reread of the original creepy.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. John Boyle says:

    Thanks for a great review of this classic. I quite agree with your comments regarding modern vampires. While I can see some vampires being attractive, sparkling/sexy undead are just absurd.
    I’ve read a couple of other stories by Stoker, but I thought Dracula his best; the epistolary form isn’t as easy as it looks.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Alexandra says:

    The undermining of the horror and supernatural genres by recent authors is certainly lamentable. I’m a Buffy kind of Gal, I’ll stab first ask questions later.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Off The TBR says:

    I’m definitely going to have to reread Dracula now too. Maybe next October. I think I’ll appreciate it a lot more than teenage me did.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Throwback SF Thursday (early): Dracula (1931 Movie Version) | Every Day Should Be Tuesday

  8. Pingback: October 2018 Month-in-Review | Every Day Should Be Tuesday

  9. Great review! I’ve only read Dracula once, but I do think it’s a story where I would get more out of a second reading. I don’t love epistolary novels in general, but your thought that the form is important is encouraging to me that I might like it more if I gave it another chance.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s