Who Is Dracula’s Father?: And Other Puzzles in Bram Stoker’s Gothic Masterpiece

by John Sutherland

Why is Dracula aristocratic?

Where does the word ‘nosferatu’ really come from?

Just what is the point of R.M. Renfield?



For 120 years, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and its shape-shifting, bloodsucking Count have thrilled and terrified readers, abetted by stage and screen versions from Nosferatu and Bela Lugosi to the Hammer films and Gary Oldman.



Here, John Sutherland, author of Is Heathcliff a Murderer? and Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?, presents a toothsome new collection of literary puzzles, scrutinising the fine and not-so-fine points of this beloved text to raise some curious questions and reach some surprising conclusions.



Along the way we learn about Stoker’s love-rivalry with Oscar Wilde, his ‘dreadful’ stage adaptation of Dracula, performed to an audience of two, a tantalising dropped prelude set in Munich, and much more.
Who is Dracula’s father? Who, for that matter, is Quincy P. Morris? Why does the Count take such pointless risks? And why are there still so few vampires? Take a peek behind Dracula’s cloak and find out.



The book also includes 'Dracula Digested' by John Crace, author of the Guardian's Digested Reads column

Genres: Nonfiction, Vampires, Books About Books, Horror, Literary Criticism

195 pages, Hardcover

Published January 1, 2017

About the author

John Andrew Sutherland is an English academic, newspaper columnist and author. He is Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London.

Reviews

[Plateresca · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Tourism in London is never as easy as the advertisements promise.'

(Speaking of Dracula's coming to England).

Mostly far-fetched; sometimes informative and thought-provoking; a bit repetitive; funny.

The main drawback of this book is that the author is so imprecise at times; one notices a mistake and then starts to doubt his other research that might be quite legit.
But this definitely deepens and broadens :) one's understanding of 'Dracula'.

[Tim Pendry · Rating 3 out of 5]

An entertaining but ultimately a rather slight and even, at times, disappointing commentary on Bram Stoker's 'Dracula'. Nevertheless, it will please fans of the original. It contains a lot of insights and clues to further research and reading although there is no index to help check facts later.

Sutherland has produced similar books on Frankenstein, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and related novels. These all explore puzzling textual questions that may or may not show writers to have been lazy, deliberately ambiguous or cunning in giving clues to the implied reality beneath the surface.

I should be grateful for the many insights but there is a lack of imagination at times. There is a reliance on internet search that gives us a sense of an expert knocking off a bit of a potboiler designed to entertain and inform but not really to give us a great deal of coherence.

If that is good enough for you, then enjoy the book and try others in the series. Sutherland certainly writes clearly. The book is not burdensome to read. However, I have to give at least one example of possible laziness that made me feel I was not entirely getting my money's worth.

Having reasonably argued for a link between crossroads, death and the cross in folklore, he then expresses puzzlement that Dracula is so averse to the cross as a symbol. In some places he has no problem with it and in others, it is implied to be terminal to him.

"Does Dracula love or hate the cross? I would be grateful for answers", he writes, having pointed out how many locations chosen by Dracula are linked to crossroads and crosses.

Surely it would have been reasonable to suggest straightaway that the cross that Dracula fears is the cross on which Jesus died which has been sanctified as Christ's symbolic act in overcoming death, turning an instrument of execution into a liberatory salvation.

Dracula is doomed (like the Eternal Jew) to near-immortal life on earth (assuming he does not come up against a vampire hunter like Van Helsing) but not to salvation, meaning life in Heaven. He is at home with the folkloric cross (death) but not with the sanctified cross (life everlasting).

An implication, perhaps unconscious, might be that Stoker was plugging into his own Church of Ireland background and the Christian presuppositions of his readers by making his creation carefully calibrated as 'evil' because he had competed with Christ as 'mysterium tremendum'.

Dracula is 'wholly other' in a very different way from the experience of Christ's love being 'wholly other' to material life. Christ promises one form of eternal life. The Anti-Christ that is Dracula lives another form of it that parodies eternal salvation.

We may go further. Christ gives his blood to us for our salvation in the mythos (we drink his body and blood in communion) whereas Dracula takes our blood to ensure his own selfish 'salvation' (mere earthly survival).

It could even be argued that Bram Stoker's anti-hero is a popular misreading of the troublesome figure of Nietzsche, critic of Christianity who argued for a god-like will to power. Is Dracula simply the Anti-Christ operating in Stoker's world as sociopathic psycho-terrorist?

Sutherland also argues persuasively that Dracula is a non-material being and is possibly descended from the demonic (pushing aside the Vlad the Impaler hypothesis). He has risen above ordinary death but that does not mean he is alive as we are alive or is anything but unsalvageable.

Hammer may get it wrong in allowing natural crosses to contain and harm Christopher Lee - such crosses must be specifically sanctified representations of the overcoming of death by Christ to have an effect. Crossroads and natural crosses actually seem to attract the Count.

If not obvious, this still strikes me as something Sutherland should have noted and argued for or against. He should have picked up that rather obvious notion and knocked it down on the literary evidence if that was what was required. Instead, the matter is lazily batted back to us.

However, the many small insights are there and Sutherland knows his original, its history and the literary criticism surrounding it. He writes clearly, not in post-modern gobbledygook for which we must all be grateful. So, buy it as an entertainment and you should not be entirely disappointed.

[Apple · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked it up in a small bookstore because I thought the title was funny, and I found it rather cheap there. If it had been more expensive, it would have stayed there.
I am glad to have picked it up though. It is interesting and entertaining and people that are interested in the novel will likely learn one or two interesting things about Dracula that are not immediately known by reading the novel.
I would have liked some more elaboration on some of the questions and a deeper exploration of them, as many were rather brief and some even felt abrupt.
Overall, I enjoyed it though.

[Simon Hedge · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fun (and funny) way of making you focus on certain aspects of Stoker's novel that in a regular read-through you might allow to just 'slide'. Makes me want to dive straight into the novel and read it again!

[Ms Jayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jon Sutherland has such an amusing style of writing and he makes this guide to Dracula so accessible and informative. I would recommend this to anyone who loves the novel or who has to study or teach the novel for any reason as it's full of fascinating snippets of information (e.g. did you know that Stephen King wrote The Shining inspired by teaching this novel to a high school class?) as well as close analysis of the text itself.

I have several Jon Sutherland books but this has inspired me to seek out more of his criticism as I learn so much from him!

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are interested in Dracula's background and the references in the original book, this is definitely worth reading: who is Dracula's father, is he a descendant from Attila, the great impaler incarnate, biography on Stoker, who is Quincey P. Morris, where does his Harem come from, Le Fanu's Carmilla, why Whitby, a chronological plot summary, what happened in Munich, why is Dracula aristocratic, how rich is he, what about his blood, is he gay. The appendix shows Dracula Digested. Really enjoyed all the details explained here. Highly recommended!

[Magdalena Morris · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a fun concept for a book, especially if you like Dracula of course, but overall it was just OK. I really enjoyed a few questions the author posed and answered, some others were plain stupid and I wasn't interested. Plus, I wasn't sure whether the author was being serious or not. And it was pretty repetitive.

[S117 · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick enjoyable read, with new tidbits even for an avid reader of all things Dracula and vampire. Sutherland approaces the subject from multible new angles, but stays on the surface. It would be interesting to dwell deeper, but it's just not that kind of book, more meant as light entertainment, and perhaps to loosen some ingrown perspectives of the subject.

[Mick Meyers · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reasonable read focusing on logical plot holes in the story,even more so in the films.it helps you question the story rather than just read it.i have read a couple of other books by the same author and found them just as interesting.

[Pamela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brought up some interesting questions about the novel Dracula... didn't always answer them fully or all that thoroughly. Did make me nostalgic for Dracula, though!

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good starting point for people looking for academia around dracula but a little too vague for my purposes!

[Georgia · Rating 3 out of 5]

fun facts about Dracula ig idk man

[Theresa F.]

I started this book with very high expectations, since I'd already read a number of John Sutherland's previous collections of 'literary puzzles'. However, in my opinion, this book was not as strong as some of the author's earlier works. It seemed to me that the text merely touched on the various topics, rather than exploring them with the level of depth that I'd come to expect from this author. I still can't decide whether I liked the book or not.
Did I like it? Not sure.
Would I reread it? Possibly. I might appreciate the work more if I reevaluate it in a few years time. It's happened before where rereading a book later in life has changed my initial opinion, and I'd be willing to give this one another chance.
Would I recommend it? In general, I would highly recommend this author. But regarding this specific book, I'm not sure.

[AmyH · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really entertaining collection of mini essays covering a wide array of topics, from history and folklore, to manuscript changes, plot holes, and Stoker’s life. My favourite had to be the theory that Quincey Morris was a vampire or servant of Dracula, unlikely intentional as Stoker would have made it clearer but definitely a reading that explains some things. Sutherland is a funny and catty writer, balancing a clear affection for the source material without becoming hagiographic. The book is really well sourced (both Stoker’s and Sutherland’s) and well quoted (plenty of new books and articles to add to the reading list). Whilst the majority of the questions can’t be definitively answered and if anything you’re left with more questions, it’s a great exercise in literary critique and makes you want to go back to Dracula to pick up on the points raised in real time.

[Emmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved the idea for this book, and it was really fun to look at different "puzzles" and "mysteries" of Dracula and piece together a possible solution. Many of the points brought up in this book were not even questions I had considered, which in a sense made it even more fun, since it made you think of the story in a new light.

My only complaint was that some of the discussions felt...off. Either they were not fleshed out enough, or the solution didn't quite make sense to me. However, any misgivings I might have had were overshadowed by the hilarious segment at the very end of the book--"Dracula Digested" which is pretty much just Stoker's novel shorted to 9 pages (and dipped in sarcasm). Very funny stuff!