Review: Dracula by Bram Stoker
Hi everyone!
It's been a good while, I know... a lot has been going on during lockdown. Some good, some bad. One of the good things is that I finally launched my own art-lit magazine called Lux Lucet Zine, which gives an opportunity for artists to publish their work and reach a wider audience! You can find more information here.
I have been reading lots during lockdown, but one book in particular has stayed with me for a few weeks and I have nearly finished it (for it is 400 pages long!) and that is Dracula (1897) by Bram Stoker.
Having always wanted to read it, I finally found a copy in a second hand bookshop on Fossgate. I have to say it took me by surprise - Dracula isn't a sleazy, "oily" man after all. It's not even a love story, however many times it is depicted that way. Apparently, the closest to an accurate adaptation of the book is a 1922 silent film Nosferatu and that's all, none of the recent, more romantic, versions are. I have to admit that I like the fact that it is not what I expected at all, and now I have a job convincing other readers to get a hold of it because many choose not to, thinking it's just a tacky story. The truth is, the readers are kept guessing a great deal. Count Dracula and his horrific behaviour is discussed at the very beginning of the book by Jonathan Harker, a solicitor, who travels to Transylvania to stay with the Count in order to help him make plans on buying property in London. During his stay Harker discovers the Count is a 'monster', and this drives him to madness. After this, Count Dracula isn't really mentioned until later on when Dracula's victims are discovered by Prof Van Helsing and the victims' families. His behaviour and assaults are merely hinted, which is possible through the genius way the book is written; only diary entries, letters, telegrams and newspaper articles narrate the story. I have a 100 or so pages left, which will be exciting to read as I have no clue how it will finish. I think, however, that I will keep re-reading the story for all my life, simply because you always miss some things in the first few times when you read a classic 'epic' such as Dracula. (Also, I had to visit Whitby again, this time with the book as Whitby is one of the locations in the story and Stoker's stay in the seaside town influenced his writing.)
Many literature critics claim Dracula is about sex and non-virtuous Victorian women, and this may be. I understand the references to these analysis - Lucy is frowned upon by Stoker because she fancies more than one man, and men giving blood to her symbolises penetration and taking back male power - because Stoker was clearly a misogynist (which can be judged by simply reading his portrayal of female characters). However, I have come to decide that I want to consider Dracula for what it is: a Gothic horror story, read in cemeteries or on a night with a cuppa. I don't think all stories should be analysed fully, because, in my view, fiction should still be enjoyed without constantly seeking for second meanings, even if the author - like Stoker - intended. What do you think, my readers? Let me know!
It's been a good while, I know... a lot has been going on during lockdown. Some good, some bad. One of the good things is that I finally launched my own art-lit magazine called Lux Lucet Zine, which gives an opportunity for artists to publish their work and reach a wider audience! You can find more information here.
I have been reading lots during lockdown, but one book in particular has stayed with me for a few weeks and I have nearly finished it (for it is 400 pages long!) and that is Dracula (1897) by Bram Stoker.
Having always wanted to read it, I finally found a copy in a second hand bookshop on Fossgate. I have to say it took me by surprise - Dracula isn't a sleazy, "oily" man after all. It's not even a love story, however many times it is depicted that way. Apparently, the closest to an accurate adaptation of the book is a 1922 silent film Nosferatu and that's all, none of the recent, more romantic, versions are. I have to admit that I like the fact that it is not what I expected at all, and now I have a job convincing other readers to get a hold of it because many choose not to, thinking it's just a tacky story. The truth is, the readers are kept guessing a great deal. Count Dracula and his horrific behaviour is discussed at the very beginning of the book by Jonathan Harker, a solicitor, who travels to Transylvania to stay with the Count in order to help him make plans on buying property in London. During his stay Harker discovers the Count is a 'monster', and this drives him to madness. After this, Count Dracula isn't really mentioned until later on when Dracula's victims are discovered by Prof Van Helsing and the victims' families. His behaviour and assaults are merely hinted, which is possible through the genius way the book is written; only diary entries, letters, telegrams and newspaper articles narrate the story. I have a 100 or so pages left, which will be exciting to read as I have no clue how it will finish. I think, however, that I will keep re-reading the story for all my life, simply because you always miss some things in the first few times when you read a classic 'epic' such as Dracula. (Also, I had to visit Whitby again, this time with the book as Whitby is one of the locations in the story and Stoker's stay in the seaside town influenced his writing.)
Many literature critics claim Dracula is about sex and non-virtuous Victorian women, and this may be. I understand the references to these analysis - Lucy is frowned upon by Stoker because she fancies more than one man, and men giving blood to her symbolises penetration and taking back male power - because Stoker was clearly a misogynist (which can be judged by simply reading his portrayal of female characters). However, I have come to decide that I want to consider Dracula for what it is: a Gothic horror story, read in cemeteries or on a night with a cuppa. I don't think all stories should be analysed fully, because, in my view, fiction should still be enjoyed without constantly seeking for second meanings, even if the author - like Stoker - intended. What do you think, my readers? Let me know!
Comments
Post a Comment