• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Bram Stoker: Dracula

I don't particularly care for the format this novel was written in, and so I haven't finished it. Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you usually ask how a book is before you order it?

Although when it comes to Dracula-related books I am all for Tim Black's Renfield: A Gospel of Dracula. Renfield is really the only character that interests me in Stoker's classic anyway.
 
Normally, yes

Normally I would ask before ordering it, but I had to get it while I was there otherwise I would have had to wait a week more than I wanted because they order on sunday, I went on saturday and they usually get the books by friday, so I still basically have to wait a week, rather than two
 
I remember enjoying it when I read it many years ago; but I also remember thinking at the time it was hard work: it's a dense, havilly-plotted novel told in a most unusual way (for its time, and for me too when I read it because I was a young reader still), comprising journals, diary logs, letters, newspapers, and other documents to form a single narrative.

I thought it was a worthwhile experience.
 
Normally I would ask before ordering it, but I had to get it while I was there otherwise I would have had to wait a week more than I wanted because they order on sunday, I went on saturday and they usually get the books by friday, so I still basically have to wait a week, rather than two
Ah, I see now. I do purchasing like that at times. ;)

I keep telling myself that I will go back and finish Dracula someday. I started reading it on http://www.literature.org but staring at the computer screen for that length of time hurts my eyes.
 
I know

Staring at a computer screen for more than 15 minutes, reading, gives me a throbbing headache. So it may or may not take me 2 months reading it on computer.
 
Nick,
If you are talking about Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula (as opposed to something based on one of the movies), you should be ready to deal with the dense and circuitous Victorian style of writing.
That is, you should have any trouble with the plot and form of the book. Many of Stoker's little "tricks" have become ordinary. However, for the "newbie" that style of prose can be very daunting.
I think you will find, though, that it is worth the effort.
 
I've read the book, but it bores me. I didn't find it interesting. It was written in a diary perspective. That's all I have to say for this book!

~Midnight~
 
No, there is nothing wrong with this technique. I'm just saying it was written in a diary perscpective, thats all!!:)
 
Nick,
If you are talking about Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula (as opposed to something based on one of the movies), you should be ready to deal with the dense and circuitous Victorian style of writing.
That is, you should have any trouble with the plot and form of the book. Many of Stoker's little "tricks" have become ordinary. However, for the "newbie" that style of prose can be very daunting.
I think you will find, though, that it is worth the effort.


Yes, I am talking about the original and I'm only a bit from the end, it's very interesting, at times hard to put down and not as difficult or even at all as difficult as you made it out to be. When I was waiting I almost began to dread reading it because some of you said it is a daunting work-laden task which, as a professional couch potato, is not too appealing.
 
When Jonathon Harker, a newly qualified solicitor, is sent to visit a client in Transylvania, he little realises that his trip to the Carpathians will change from romantic journey to life-threatening horror.

But his experiences at Count Dracula's castle are just the beginning. While Harker is still on his way home, his fiancé, Mina, is visiting her best friend in Whitby. And when Lucy falls mysteriously ill, shortly after the arrival in port of a ship that is manned only by a dead skipper, lashed to his wheel, her friends call on Professor Van Helsing to come to their aid.

Not the 'original' vampire tale by a long chalk – Polidori's The Vampyre, from 1819, was the first to employ vampires as a stock figure in gothic horror – but Bram Stoker's is the one that, since its initial publication in 1897, has stood the test of time.

It remains an excellent example of the genre. Taking an epistolary form made up of letters, notes, newspaper reports and diary entries from various characters, Stoker avoids overly flowery language, while his theatre background (he was stage manager to the legendary Victorian actor, Sir Henry Irving) shows in his ability to write various characters' in a way that helps you 'hear' their voices. Van Helsing, for instance, 'speaks' and writes English with a slight hint of Germanic foreignness, while various working-class figures speak in the expected manner.

But what makes this novel stand out are the themes that Stoker deals with.

New-fangled technology and science rear their heads – typewriters, cameras and recording machines are seen alongside new-fangled sciences such as psychology. In the novel, science in particular needs to be overcome. Van Helsing's understanding of what Dracula is depends on his 'openness' to things other than science and the empirical world. The other characters have to learn to accept what they find so difficult to believe – the message being that that difficulty is a direct consequence of faith in science etc.

And religion is important – not simply for the artifacts that protect (crucifixes, crosses and holy water) – but those fighting Dracula increasingly appeal to God for help in their quest. Folklore too is a help, seen in the role of garlic in keeping vampires away.

This is fin de siècle Europe, with Stoker appealing for the 'old beliefs' in the face of the new. But his concerns go further.

The dominant theme here is of the danger of female sexuality – specifically, its danger to men.

The main threat to Harker's life in Transylvania is not from Dracula himself, but from his three vampire brides.

Once the count has made his way to England, he infects the innocent Lucy. If, as she lies on her death bed, she is allowed to kiss her own fiancé, then her fiancé too will be infected. So the kiss is blocked by van Helsing.

Stoker's choice of vocabulary leaves no doubt.

The vampire brides and the infected Lucy are examples of "voluptuousness" and "wantonness", while the pre-infected Lucy is "pure" and "innocent". Such vocabulary is used time and time again.

Dracula comes to Lucy – and later Mina – at night, when they're in bed.

The scene where he takes Mina is clearly sexual – having bitten her, he cuts his own breast and, forcing her head to him, makes her drink his blood. They're discovered with Mina at his breast – a parody of maternity.

And what would men have to be so frightened of, other than sexuality itself?

In the late 19th century, syphilis was rife. Theories of the origins of the disease are manifold. Suggestions include it having come to Europe via the Spanish conquest of the New World. However, in England, the disease was known at a 13–14th century Augustinian friary in the north-eastern port of Hull (not very far from Whitby). That Hull is a port suggests that the virus could have been 'imported' via its maritime links. What is clear is that syphilis has long been blamed on foreigners. It has been variously called the 'French disease' in Italy and Germany, and the 'Italian disease' in France. The Dutch called it the 'Spanish disease', the Russians called it the 'Polish disease', the Turks called it the 'Christian disease' or 'Frank disease' and the Tahitians called it the 'British disease'.

In Stoker's England, respectable women didn't like sex – the only reason for it was to procreate. As a result, with little or no sexual outlet at home, middle-class Englishmen visited prostitutes widely. And the fear of syphilis caused them to hunt for virgins, in an effort to stay 'clean'.

In Dracula, the deadly infection is imported by a foreigner, who 'seduces' women in their beds at night, exchanging bodily fluids as he passes on the killer infection.

Arthur Holmwood cannot be allowed to kiss his dying Lucy, because it would infect him. Only after the undead Lucy is staked can she really die and, her soul cleansed once again, take her place in Heaven.

With Mina, after Dracula's assault on her, she is 'unclean' – to the extent that, when van Helsing presses a communion wafer to her forehead, a mark is 'burnt' onto her skin. Even God blames and rejects her, and sees her as unholy.

Female sexuality is presented as an inevitable – women need little or no tempting. Mina and Lucy are "pure", exemplary women – yet neither is able to resist the count's blood lust. They need to be protected by men and by religion. Men need to protect themselves, by controlling and subduing female sexuality.

The contradictions are obvious – the idea that men are somehow 'innocent' in all this, together with the refusal to recognise that female 'respectability' is itself a part of the problem.

But the attitudes are far from new – they hark back to ancient beliefs, including Biblical ideas of female impurity and the myth of Adam and Eve and the serpent.

Thus Stoker's Dracula is not only a great work of gothic horror, but an insight into Victorian social attitudes and fears. That alone makes it a worthwhile and absolutely fascinating read.
 
Interesting, but a few counter points.

New-fangled technology and science rear their heads – typewriters, cameras and recording machines are seen alongside new-fangled sciences such as psychology. In the novel, science in particular needs to be overcome.

I am not sure that science needs to be overcome. There are the traditional religious artefacts that you observe are used to confound Dracula, but equivalent is the use of a telegram, steamship, and a telephone to steal a march on him. The use of psychology and criminology is sufficiently reminiscant of Sherlock Holmes that I can’t agree that it is anti-science.

The dominant theme here is of the danger of female sexuality – specifically, its danger to men.

The main threat to Harker's life in Transylvania is not from Dracula himself, but from his three vampire brides.

I can see the point here, but I thought the significance of the brides was that they were slaves or possessions of Dracula rather than as a direct threat. I am tempted towards the position that the female sexuality isn’t so much a theme, as a reflection that the book is a bit of PG smut – but this could be a case of effect and cause as my reading is, of course, influenced by all the Hammer House stuff.

And what would men have to be so frightened of, other than sexuality itself?

Well, I would suggest immigration, revolution and invasion myself. I am surprised you read immigration as a theme in “Midwich Cuckoos” rather than here.

Dracula is a dirty, (working class?), foreigner (Jew?) who invades England with the intent of propagating his kind and corrupting the virtuous folk of middle class England. That he is assisted by the working classes might be significant (by the way how does one expect the working classes to speak? ;) ).

In the late 19th century, syphilis was rife. Theories of the origins of the disease are manifold. Suggestions include it having come to Europe via the Spanish conquest of the New World. However, in England, the disease was known at a 13–14th century Augustinian friary in the north-eastern port of Hull (not very far from Whitby). That Hull is a port suggests that the virus could have been 'imported' via its maritime links. What is clear is that syphilis has long been blamed on foreigners. It has been variously called the 'French disease' in Italy and Germany, and the 'Italian disease' in France. The Dutch called it the 'Spanish disease', the Russians called it the 'Polish disease', the Turks called it the 'Christian disease' or 'Frank disease' and the Tahitians called it the 'British disease'.

I have never been a fan of this analogy. Yes, obviously, Vampirism in the Dracula tradition is an STD. But isn’t that a convention of the genre/folk tradition which Stoker borrowed? Would either the author or his readers really recover some folk tale warning about promiscuous sex from the story?
 
Sorry to take so long responding.

... I am not sure that science needs to be overcome. There are the traditional religious artefacts that you observe are used to confound Dracula, but equivalent is the use of a telegram, steamship, and a telephone to steal a march on him. The use of psychology and criminology is sufficiently reminiscant of Sherlock Holmes that I can’t agree that it is anti-science...

Fair point. Although I think that there is a huge – and growing – reference to religion as the novel progresses. Faith in the Christian god is viewed as hugely important to their quest.

... I can see the point here, but I thought the significance of the brides was that they were slaves or possessions of Dracula rather than as a direct threat. I am tempted towards the position that the female sexuality isn’t so much a theme, as a reflection that the book is a bit of PG smut – but this could be a case of effect and cause as my reading is, of course, influenced by all the Hammer House stuff...

When Dracula leaves the castle for England, he leaves Harker a prisoner and says that the brides can have him for themselves. Regardless of their relationship to Dracula, they are the immediate physical danger to Harker – not the count. The whole idea of who 'owns' them, though, raises a different question. If vampiric ownership is based on who converts one to the vampire state, then someone must also 'own' Dracula.

... Well, I would suggest immigration, revolution and invasion myself. I am surprised you read immigration as a theme in “Midwich Cuckoos” rather than here...

Because I think it's there – they are being 'invaded', after all, in more ways than one. Rape is a well-known weapon of war too. But the 'invaders' settle and start the process of changing the society and culture around them.

As I think I noted in the review, the Empire Windrush had landed in England in June 1948 with the first large group of West Indian immigrants. The Midwich Cuckoos was first published nine years later. Indeed, just a year after publication, London saw some of the worst racial violence Britain has ever seen when trouble flared in the Notting Hill area between whites and West Indian blacks. So tensions were already present when Wyndham was writing.

For me, the book is partly a warning against changes in society coming from the arrival of outsiders.

In Dracula, the threat comes from outside too – as I said earlier, this is the corruption of respectable English womanhood by a foreigner: a sexual corruption – a seduction from outside. The novel might partly have been intended as titillation – but that doesn't stop it also allowing for a judgment to be made on its subject; see the Daily Mail in the UK today: a supposedly respectable, conservative paper that titillates before then condemning.

... Dracula is a dirty, (working class?), foreigner (Jew?) who invades England with the intent of propagating his kind and corrupting the virtuous folk of middle class England. That he is assisted by the working classes might be significant (by the way how does one expect the working classes to speak? ;) ).

Look at how Stoker describes Dracula's past – drawing a great deal on the real-life Vlad the Impaler (also known as Drăculea). He's aristocratic (hardly working class), with an heroic background as a warrior. He is assisted by gypsies – that might be significant. But I can see absolutely nothing to suggest that Dracula is Jewish – and the whole Vlad the Impaler link also suggests otherwise.

... I have never been a fan of this analogy. Yes, obviously, Vampirism in the Dracula tradition is an STD. But isn’t that a convention of the genre/folk tradition which Stoker borrowed? Would either the author or his readers really recover some folk tale warning about promiscuous sex from the story?

I suspect it's more a question of an author feeling that a known genre/folk tale allows him the opportunity to explore modern-day issues. Take Angela Carter as an example – her reworkings of fairy tales still clearly reveal the well-known sources, but also act as a template for looking at issues in a way that was reflective of her own times and experiences.

As I explained, the historic background against which the book was written was one where syphilis was a major threat – the HIV/Aids of its day. It was also, at the time, described in many countries as a disease from another nation. Those are facts. It's also the case that Victorian hypocrisy over sex – and female sexuality in particular – led to London being the child prostitution capital of the world at the time. The whole idea, which is almost that of a Protestant/secular Madonna – is of the respectable woman on a pedestal, completely non-sexual. Look at Pre-Raphaelite portrayals of women: victims, dead – almost religious. Non-sexual – and non-threatening. In essence, 'respectable' women didn't like or want sex. They had sex only to breed. So the men, not getting much in the way of conjugal fun, had to look elsewhere. Given the fear over syphilis, virgins were rather popular – and how do you know if she's a virgin? Younger and younger. Emile Zola notes in a diary that, on one visit to London, he was propositioned by a girl he estimated as being as young as six. He was horrified, but tried to give the child a coin. He got a mouthful of abuse in return – the child knew not to take something for nothing.

It's entirely in keeping with the historic context to see the issue of female sexuality in the novel.

Just to note: my edition had no notes. I've read a number of pieces since reading it (out of interest), but had 'seen' the issues mentioned above in the book on my own, before reading some essays etc (including an abridged version of John Banville's new introduction for the Folio Society edition).


Dogmatix – many thanks.
 
He is assisted by gypsies – that might be significant. But I can see absolutely nothing to suggest that Dracula is Jewish – and the whole Vlad the Impaler link also suggests otherwise.

Me neither, although I have read that the novel did contain hints of anti-Semitism. I remember reading the way Stoker described the Count was similar to a stereotypical portrayal of a Jewish person. And when I looked this up recently (not that I did in-depth research or anything), I found out that Victorian England experienced a huge wave of anti-Semitism. That said, I agree with your outlook on the character. Just figured I'd try to shed some light on the subject :).
 
Look at how Stoker describes Dracula's past – drawing a great deal on the real-life Vlad the Impaler (also known as Drăculea). He's aristocratic (hardly working class), with an heroic background as a warrior. He is assisted by gypsies – that might be significant. But I can see absolutely nothing to suggest that Dracula is Jewish – and the whole Vlad the Impaler link also suggests otherwise.
Stictly, Dracula describes his past not Stoker. If you want to take him as a reliable witness, he doesn't claim to be Vlad, and I remember thinking when I read the passage about Dracula describing 'the good old days', he could equally have been a household retainer – I suppose it depends on how you interpret the emphasis on Dracula's use of the pronoun 'we'. But my main reason for considering him to be a working class threat is his behaviour. He acts as a servant; he does the cooking, serves meals, does his own heavy lifting. He sleeps on an earth bed which puts him in the poor classes and he associates most comfortably with the working classes.

As to representing a Jewish threat – I am not sure about this. The reason I think it might be there is the animal imagery. It is very reminiscent of the anti-Semitic imagery coming from the first half of the 20th century.

I suspect it's more a question of an author feeling that a known genre/folk tale allows him the opportunity to explore modern-day issues. Take Angela Carter as an example – her reworkings of fairy tales still clearly reveal the well-known sources, but also act as a template for looking at issues in a way that was reflective of her own times and experiences.

As I explained, the historic background against which the book was written was one where syphilis was a major threat – the HIV/Aids of its day.

By your reasoning, any contemporary vampiric work would be read as a commentary on HIV/Aids. As I said, I just don't find the argument that this is a deliberate allusion by Stoker convincing.

p.s. enjoy the reviews even if I don't agree with some of them.
 
Dracula is an awesome book, I read it about a month ago. Ever since then, whenever someone mentions twilight to me, or in one case, a kid was talking about how vampires weren't evil - I flip out and batter them over the head like Dracula does,
Renfield style
. Did anybody think it was weird when Van Helsing started laughing after the funeral?
 
I first read it when I was just a little kid and thought that this is the kind of literature that should be read through and through. No doubt about it, Stoker was a good writer.

I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good story.
 
Sybarite you certainly started an interesting and lively discussion with your original post. Were you quoting a literary analysis or thesis, et. al.? Dracula, like Frankenstein lends itself to many facets of literary discussion and personal reactions. IMHO books like these can never be read too many times or discussed too often.

[An aside: THE ANNOTATED DRACULA and IN SEARCH OF DRACULA are monumental sources for line by line analysis, definitions, meaning of allusions and historical placement for anyone seriously studying one of the most popular books ever written in the English language.]

Two contemporary books re: Dracula are THE DRACULA DOSSIER and THE HISTORIAN each very different.
 
Back
Top