[Please note that this is not so much a review as it is a collection of my various thoughts upon finishing the book.]

Okay, so, here's the thing. I was just browsing through other reviews, and most of them start with, "I don't usually read horror novels..." or something to that degree. But I feel like Dracula isn't really horror, even though it is categorized as such. Classically it is, of course it is. It's a prime example of a Gothic novel. But never at any point while I was reading it was I horrified. I'm sure part of this is due to being steeped in the modern genre of horror, slasher movies and their dime store paperback equivalents - I've been desensitized to the subtleties of a novel over a century old. The most distressing thing I encountered in reading was the description of Dracula himself, and that was only enough to make me curl my lip in distaste.

Though really, I gotta say, man am I glad that the hairy palms thing never found a home. Because ew.

Anyway.

Something else that I find interesting about Dracula is its epistolary frame. It allows for close observance of the events within the novel, while not promising anything regarding the ending, and I give Stoker props for that. But I feel that such a frame is also an ideal way to explore characterization, which Stoker does not do. I understand that the point of Dracula is not the individual characters, but I vaguely resent the fact that he has this fantastic way to dig into the workings of these different people and he doesn’t utilize it. He could go into their different methods of coping with the situation, what they’re specifically afraid will happen, whether they feel this is retribution for something or if it’s just fate, and so on.

Instead, they’re like cookie cutter people. One of them will present an idea, and everyone else will chorus, “Jolly good!” and back the idea one hundred percent. I think there’s one occasion when Godalming suggests something, and Van Helsing immediately reprimands him, at which point Godalming says, “Oh, yes, you’re right, I was being a dumbass, I shan’t have an original idea ever again.” THIS IS NOT HOW PEOPLE WORK. Van Helsing is a strong leader, yes, and can rally them to him. But they’re not going to behave like sheep up until that point – they should get angry, they should argue. All we get are sad, tired people; did Stoker forget that when people are backed into a corner, they fight?

Despite my nitpicking, it’s a good book and definitely worth reading.