Bram Stoker (1847–1912)

Dracula is one of those books that has become so ingrained in our culture that the original work almost feels alien. The antagonist has inspired characters featured on cereal boxes and in children's television shows, where he either represents chocolaty goodness or counts a lot. I find it interesting that a character originally intended to symbolize malevolent evil has become such an icon of sorts. Even if the imagery mostly comes from the 1930's movie adaptation.

Equally fascinating is how show more the book itself, originally criticized as low brow fiction, rode upon alleged wings of shock value and managed to survive the test of time. It's no wonder so many generations of readers have been enthralled by this piece of work. Though it is not lacking in depth, at its core Stoker has really fleshed out a cast of memorable characters, and that so often seems to be a determining factor in the timelessness of a novel. They unquestionably make up for the thinly-veiled plot devices and Van Helsing's obnoxiously long-winded speeches.

Stoker does come off as a bit of a misogynist at times, but if you pay attention to how Mina is treated and the resulting consequences he seems to be hinting at exactly the opposite. I liken him to a man today who argues for equal rights for both genders, but insists on paying for meals when he dates a woman. In the future that will most likely appear misogynistic with negative connotations, but I doubt many women are too fussy about that now, and I myself probably fit that description. Well, that is to say, if I weren't a poor broke bastard and could talk to ladyfolk without panicking, blabbing incoherently, or running away screaming in a fit terror-stricken dismay.

Nevertheless, there is a lot going on beneath the surface here, and to bluntly disregard the dynamics of the characters and their relationship is doing the novel a great disservice. I now wonder, considering how poorly this book was received by critics during its original release, how many authors today suffer the same prejudice at the hands of those who prefer their books to be strictly of the literary variety. Really, what does a book that forces its 'literary greatness' on the reader do other than display its author's utter lack of creativity? To say something important and to do it in a way that is still exciting to read takes considerable talent, and it shames me that so many 'literary snobs' continue to make the same mistakes their predecessors have done for centuries. While I love me a good tromp into the worlds of literature, if there is a lesson to be learned it is that the pace or popularity should not be an immediate reason for condemnation. And that you can tell if someone is unspeakably evil by throwing wafers at them. show less

Every night, as I settled in with this classic horror tale, I felt as though a dark, heavy drape was closing in around me, blocking out the light and isolating me. Sights and sounds took on a sinister air; shadows moved around me menacingly.

Bram Stoker cast the mold for all vampire stories to come, piecing together myths and folktales to create one of the most disturbing and creepy villains of all time. Count Dracula comes complete with the breath of decomposing flesh, sharpened teeth, red show more shining eyes, and hairy palms. His hypnotic command over the creatures of the world and people, together with his ability to shape shift, also make him one of the most powerful villains of all time.

Stoker also added a great deal to the mythology of victims in horror tales. The people whom Dracula chooses as his victims are riddled with self-doubt and fear. Jonathon Harker, who introduces the Count to us, is perhaps the best example. He ignores the warnings and pleadings of local villagers, trusting in his own rational mind, and flies directly into the vampire’s web. Once there, he ignores his own growing sense of doom for far too long before attempting to free himself. Harker rubs many folks the wrong way, with his constant inner debate over whether the Count is evil or whether he is just an eccentric old man; a debate that the reader can settle immediately. In defense of Harker, I wonder whether he bothers us because he epitomizes our own self-doubt and fear. Indeed, when Harker is brave, climbing down the wall of the castle, opening the vampire’s coffin, and searching the vile beings pockets for a key to freedom, we cheer him on. But when he falls back into his victim mentality, we want to cast him off. Perhaps, Harker represents the inner struggle we all face to get over ourselves.

Another character who seems to cause a good deal of head shaking is Harker’s betrothed, Mina Harker. This smart young woman often outshines the males in the hunt for Dracula, culling together overlooked clues and evidence. Later in the story, some argue that she is abandoned as just so much feminine dead weight, ignored as too fragile to help, requiring protection rather inclusion. For me, the story carried a heavy moral in the group’s choice to exclude Mina. At the very moment when Van Helsing chooses to cut Mina off, Dracula gains the upper hand. When Mina is again made part of the circle, the group is able to locate and gain ground on the vampire. Stoker seemed to be making a pretty clear point to me that the gifts Mina offered in the search for Dracula were vital to success. And he also seemed to be reiterating that their endeavors were only hindered by separating their once singular mind.

The execution of the Count in the final pages seems to herald the very death of myth itself. Throughout the entire hunt for the vampire, Van Helsing makes much of open-minded thought. But, even in his inclusion of folklore and myth, the Dutch professor relies on logic and reason to process this alternative information, eventually locating the villain through an early form of behavioral profiling. When Dracula is surrounded by men armed with Winchester rifles and then dispatched with steel knives, rather than a wooden stake, Stoker ushers in a new modern era of industry and commerce, killing forever the dark days of myth and folklore.

Stoker’s novel deserves its place hall of the classics. He single-handedly spawned an entire genre of story-telling. So many of the popular vampire tales or our day follow the paths he trail-blazed. Dracula is the standard by which all recent vampire stories should be judged. The original is the best. show less

This book should be required reading before anyone is exposed to vampire anything! While Stoker did not “invent” the idea of vampires, his book is the basis of the modern definition as we know it today. What a pleasure it must have been for the readers in 1897, largely new to the concepts, to have read with such suspense the horrors of Jonathan Harker as he unknowingly brings himself into Count Dracula’s castle. Dum, dum, dummm!!

Opening with Jonathan who is the legal rep managing the show more Count’s property purchase in London, the plot thickens mid-section with all key characters introduced including the now famous Prof. Van Helsing, the newly inducted vampire, poor beautiful Lucy, and the team who will then become the vampire hunters – Dr. Seward, Arthur (Lucy’s betrothed), Mina (Jonathan’s wife), and Quincy (the lone American in the story), and finally the hunt – all the way to Transylvania. The sceneries, the descriptions of the Count’s abilities/limitations, the elegant Victorian English that is not Austen/Dickens but describing horror and fear and lost – what is there not to like about this unique piece of literature? Buy an edition that has footnotes to comprehend the geography and regional English of that time.

The book is narrated via journals from selected individuals only but nonetheless covers all characters well, all of whom I found immensely likeable – perhaps easy to feel for heroes. The narratives permeate with an uplifting spirit, “…the world seems full of good men – even if there are monsters in it.” Lucy’s beauty was described with such flourish that I wish I can see for myself and imagine the heart break when her features turn to those of a vampire. Stoker doesn’t elaborate on the Count’s point-of-view, and one may even argue that his character is not well developed but doesn’t that keep the Count even more mysterious?

Now, be sure to avoid individuals who are pale, tall, thin, red eyes, mouth full of white, sharp teeth, with an ability to crawl down walls head-first, turn to mist, snow, commands wolves, and can’t cross the water. :)

Favorite character: Mina Harker – Easily the most loving, intelligent, thoughtful, caring person, she had an unintended leadership role, having compiled all the timeline of facts and finding the clue to track the Count.
Least Favorite character: None – not even the Count

Some Quotes:
On America – I don’t know why but I laughed. BTW, he is Texan:
“What a fine fellow is Quincey! I believe in my heart of hearts that he suffered as much about Lucy’s death as any of us; but he bore himself through it like a moral Viking. If America can go on breeding men like that, she will be a power in the world indeed.”

On Faith – Purportedly from Mark Twain who Stoker knew:
“… ‘that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue’… He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let a little bit of truth check the rush of a big truth…”

On Truth:
“If it be not true, then proof will be relief; at worst it will not harm. If it be true! Ah, there is the dread; yet very dread should help my cause, for in it is some need of belief.”

On Being a Man – I rather liked this definition:
Van Helsing on Jonathan: “…After reading his account of it I was prepared to meet a good specimen of manhood, but hardly the quiet, business-like gentleman who came here to-day.”
Mina on Jonathan: “He was never so resolute, never so strong, never so full of volcanic energy, as at present. It is just as that dear, good Professor Van Helsing said: he is true grit, and he improves under strain that would kill a weaker nature. He came back full of life and hope and determination…”

On Sorrow – Arthur finally breaks down over Lucy:
From Mina: “It seemed to me that all he had of late been suffering in silence found a vent at once. He grew quite hysterical, and raising his open hands, beat his palms together in a perfect agony of grief. He stood up and then sat down again, and the tears rained down his cheeks. I felt an infinite pity for him, and opened my arms unthinkingly. With a sob he laid his head on my shoulder and cried like a wearied child, whilst he shook with emotion.”

On Intellect – Eek. This made me cringe a bit, despite it being a compliment on a female.
From Prof Van Helsing: “Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man’s brain – a brain that a man should have were he much gifted – and a woman’s heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good combination.” show less

Introducing one of English literature’s most infamous characters, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a feast of a novel that delights both those with a taste for horror, and those without. While modern readers will recognize much of the Count that they have come to know through popular culture, the original novel holds much more than suave aristocrats and women in negligees.

The epistolary form of the novel – which comes into vogue in the 18th-century – allows Stoker to create a sense of show more suspense and complexity as he navigates several different narratives that prove essential to the successful relation of his vampire story. Although modern films have simplified the narrative to fit their own format, Dracula would not be the novel it is without the myriad of voices that Stoker utilizes to establish his story, and would certainly lose much of its power and seduction if left to a singular narrator.

When reading Dracula for analysis (as oppose to personal pleasure) it is important to remember that Stoker's work is actually a fairly late addition to the evolving body of English vampire literature. Authors such as Keats, Coleridge, Byron, Polidori, and Le Fanu all raise their voices to contribute to the emerging rendition of an ancient figure, and have their influence in Stoker's creation of his iconic Count. What Stoker does is not create the vampire myth - nor the English vampire story - but rather uses it to very 19th-century English ends.

In the wide scope of Gothic monsters, the vampire is one of the more recent members. While witches haunt medieval manuscripts and werewolves stalk Renaissance dramas, the vampire does not appear in English literature until relatively late.* Stoker himself is responsible for many characteristics that have now become standard for the modern vampire figure, and contemporary authors and artists owe much to Stoker’s conception. What I find most interesting, however, is how Stoker himself manipulates the standards of his time to give life to the character that has so permeated public consciousness. Dracula moves beyond the traditions of horror and Gothic and becomes a piece of social commentary and exploration that contains radical examinations of gender, sexuality, and reproduction. Under the guise of Gothic, Stoker is allowed the freedom to challenge traditional roles established by Victorian society, and pushes against traditional institutions under the cloak of "horror".

Dracula has earned its place in the English canon, and remains an important and influential work of literature that is sure to delight readers for centuries to come.

*According to Montague Summers, demonic creatures that possess certain characteristics attributed to vampires by modern audiences can in fact be found in manuscripts as early as the 14th century, but these distinctions and identifications are all made several centuries after their original composition. show less