Bram Stoker: Dracula

Sybarite

Reader
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 fianc?, 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 si?cle 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 fianc?, then her fianc? 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.

This is the rape victim being blamed for the rape on her. Even today in the UK, in this supposedly civilised country, surveys show that many people still consider a woman alleging rape to be to blame (in some degree at least) if she's wearing a low-cut dress, for instance.

It's not that far from demanding that women wear a burka to protect them from men – by protecting men from temptation.

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.
 
Last edited:

liehtzu

Reader
First Hamsun's Pan and now this. Seems folks round here like to finish books at the same time I do.

I don't have much to add to the original post, as you've thought of the book in a different light than I did (I saw it more as a parable about "civilized" Europe's fears of its darker corners), but I'll just say that while the book isn't a masterpiece on the literary level - and there are even times when it descends into rather soppy Victorian love exclamations and tearful, full, buckets full of tears and Oh-but-shall-we-never-meet-agains that are almost parodic - but I think its status as cult object have overshadowed what literary merits it does have, particularly its cleverly done interweaving of journals to chart the course of the narrative. It's an effective device - and also worth noting that the book's real main characters, the one Stoker clearly loves most, the vampire and Van Helsing, have no voice outside of the journals of the others (the latter always hilariously transcribed into botched English).

Also interested me to see the extent to which the movie versions dick around with the original novel, particularly Todd Browning's painfully creaky 1931 version, which retains little of the source. I haven't seen the Coppola version for awhile, but I remember it being quite bad.
 

titania7

Reader
First of all, I must congratulate Sybarite on a splendid review! Very good work indeed.

Liehtzu,

liehtzu said:
I don't have much to add to the original post, as you've thought of the book in a different light than I did (I saw it more as a parable about "civilized" Europe's fears of its darker corners), but I'll just say that while the book isn't a masterpiece on the literary level - and there are even times when it descends into rather soppy Victorian love exclamations and tearful, full, buckets full of tears and Oh-but-shall-we-never-meet-agains that are almost parodic - but I think its status as cult object have overshadowed what literary merits it does have, particularly its cleverly done interweaving of journals to chart the course of the narrative.

I agree with this completely. The novel has a tremendous cult following, and that, in and of itself, has prevented many readers from being able to objectively analyze its literary merits.

When I read Dracula a few years ago, I didn't yet have the annotated version. However, when I purchased this, I decided I would at some point read it again. I assume, Sybarite, since you didn't mention any annotations, that you didn't read the annotated version. However, I highly recommend it to you, and to anyone who is deeply interested in this book. Unfortunately, I can't presently find my copy of it. Thus, I am unable to give specific examples from it. I do remember that it is very enlightening in regard to the various interpretations of the themes that you speak of, Sybarite, as well as the historical context of the book and both the obvious and not-so-obvious sexual innuendos.

While I'm certain that Dracula makes a strong statement in regard to female sexuality, I also think it demonstrates, on a more superficial but nonetheless significant level, how easily we can be beguiled by the darkness that surrounds us. The dark can be more bewitching than the light, and creatures of the night can easily draw us to them. Their black, underground existence can have a strange, perverted appeal. Indeed, I often I think that which frightens us is that which attracts us most. Perhaps repulsion and desire are not so far removed from one another, after all.

If you're looking for an interesting vampire film based on Stoker's novel, (and don't care if parts of it are a bit campy), try Werner Herzog's 1979 film, "Nosferatu: The Vampire." I think this movie is almost worth seeing simply for the exquisite Isabelle Adjani's captivating portrayal of Mina. With her wide, blue eyes, alabaster skin, and long, black hair, Ms. Adjani is absolutely stunning.

I agree with you, liehtzu, in regard to the Coppola version of "Dracula"--it was really rather awful.

Sybarite, once again thanks for the review. You've made me more anxious than ever to re-visit this cult classic.


~Titania
 
Last edited:

Jayaprakash

Reader
Illuminating remarks, as usual, Sybarite. I think Stoker was generally disapproving of female sexuality and aggression. In another novel, THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, look at the way he portrays the villainess Arabella March, a strong-willed woman who is not afraid to pursue her chosen mate or to act with deadly force when required. Naturally she turns out to be some sort of evil, only partly human creature. The book is also terribly racist - naturally foreigners, especialy swarthy skinned ones, would have to be another popular phobia that Stoker shared.

I don't know if there is any relation between desire and repulsion, but certainly there are moments when one feels there was some such tortured dichotomy at play in Stoker's own mind.

As to filmed accounts of Dracula, I must confess I favour the Hammer films, with an especial fondness for Peter Cushing's gallant, avuncular Van Helsing.
 

titania7

Reader
Jayaprakash said:
In another novel, THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, look at the way he (Stoker) portrays the villainess Arabella March, a strong-willed woman who is not afraid to pursue her chosen mate or to act with deadly force when required. Naturally she turns out to be some sort of evil, only partly human creature.

Ah, Jayaprakash, this I must read! ;) I am adding The Lair of the White Worm to my to-be-purchased list.

Jayaprakash said:
I don't know if there is any relation between desire and repulsion

In vampire literature, I feel there is. Even in other books, there are certain elements that bring up the question, "Can we be attracted by that which repels us?" Look at some of the books that have been written about psychopaths and serial killers--as well as some of the films that feature
such characters. Was not Hannibal Lecter mesmerizing? Weren't we fascinated by him? I know I was. He repelled me, and yet, I was drawn to his brilliance, his wit, and his innate sophistication. In real life, there can also be instances in which repulsion is linked to desire. Many women have written love letters to horrific serial killers. Perhaps the element of fear these murderers evoke in certain members of the female sex makes them feel as if they're taking a risk. And risk-taking generally has an aspect of enchantment about it. We must admit, when we think of Coppola's film version of Stoker's Dracula, that Winona Ryder, as Mina, demonstrates both a fascination for and an aversion to Gary Oldman (as Dracula). She perceives there is something dark and sinister about him. Yet, she is drawn to it. I have seen this film more recently than I have read the book; thus, certain visual images stand out. Sybarite has definitely piqued my interest in re-reading Stoker's original text, though I shall be opting for the annotated version.

Jayaprakash said:
As to filmed accounts of Dracula, I must confess I favour the Hammer films, with an especial fondness for Peter Cushing's gallant, avuncular Van Helsing.

Peter Cushing is priceless! I, too, am a fan of the Hammer films.

~Titania
 

Jayaprakash

Reader
>>In vampire literature, I feel there is. Even in other books, there are certain elements that bring up the question

Yeah, I should have realised that. It's just not my thing - I'm more attracted to the Lovecrat/Ligotti brand of horror where the entire universe itself is revealed to be incomprehensible and malevolent.

I have a book of Stoker's short stories. I should dip into it a bit and see what there is that might tie in with the themes in Dracula discussed here.
 

titania7

Reader
titania said:
In vampire literature, I feel there is. Even in other books, there are certain elements that bring up the question

Jayaprakash said:
Yeah, I should have realised that. It's just not my thing - I'm more attracted to the Lovecrat/Ligotti brand of horror where the entire universe itself is revealed to be incomprehensible and malevolent.

Oh, I like Lovecraft, too! Yes, indeed. He is certainly one of my favorite horror writers. Perhaps you would have specific recommendations in regard to his work? Also, I'm not familiar with Ligotti. Does he mostly write stories...or novels, as well?

The concept of the entire universe being malevolent/incomprehensible interests me, as well. For example, a novel like Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is very haunting to me as I could never imagine a society in which books were forbidden. I think that is a form of evil, the idea of preventing people from acquiring knowledge.

Jayaprakash said:
I have a book of Stoker's short stories.

Do you now? You're lucky, Jayaprakash! I'm going to have to look for one to buy, and, in the meantime, see if one of the two libraries I frequent has a collection of Stoker stories.

Jayaprakash said:
I should dip into it a bit and see what there is that might tie in with the themes in Dracula discussed here.

Indeed! And you'll have to start a new thread on Bram Stoker, Jayaprakash. Then we can really have some fun! ;)

~Titania
 
Bram Stoker makes brilliant use of the technique of multiple perspectives perfected by Wilkie Collins in The Woman in White. Anyone with the slightest interest in horror or vampire fiction has got to read this seminal novel, of course, but they may be surprised by how little Count Dracula is "onstage": after the lengthy opening sequence in Transylvania, he barely appears again until the final pages.
 

shipeichong

New member
I think Dracula is a wonderful book. The theme of good versus evil is evident. There is also redemption. Even Dracula, when he died, appeared at peace.
 

MichaelHW

Active member
>>In vampire literature, I feel there is. Even in other books, there are certain elements that bring up the question

Yeah, I should have realised that. It's just not my thing - I'm more attracted to the Lovecrat/Ligotti brand of horror where the entire universe itself is revealed to be incomprehensible and malevolent.

I have a book of Stoker's short stories. I should dip into it a bit and see what there is that might tie in with the themes in Dracula discussed here.
When I read "The Tomb" by Lovecraft I realized that the man was a master of first person narratives. You will see the same in "The Temple" and many other stories. He is in fact almost an American Kafka. Robert E. Howard's "The Pigeons from Hell" was labelled an american classic by Stephen King. That story is also technically brilliant.

In my view, Howard and Lovecraft were among the technically most brilliant writers of their age. The reason why it went unrecognized for so long was prejudices against the genre, and the medium, the pulp magazines.

If you go to the predecessors of Dracula, you will find another genius, namely Ann Radcliffe.
 
Top