Dracula in A Book Walks Into a Bar

Oct 04, 2016 Travis rated it liked it · review of another edition

2.5 stars (I'm rounding up to 3)

Dracula reads as an amalgamation of an overly sentimental Victorian romance novel, a dark and bloody horror novel, an adventurous detective story, and a preachy Christian legend. I enjoyed reading this novel, but I didn't love it. It was not at all what I expected: it is much more overtly religious than I would have thought, and it is less a universal tale of good and evil and instead is very much of its time (the Victorian Era) in terms of its values, its languag 2.5 stars (I'm rounding up to 3)

Dracula reads as an amalgamation of an overly sentimental Victorian romance novel, a dark and bloody horror novel, an adventurous detective story, and a preachy Christian legend. I enjoyed reading this novel, but I didn't love it. It was not at all what I expected: it is much more overtly religious than I would have thought, and it is less a universal tale of good and evil and instead is very much of its time (the Victorian Era) in terms of its values, its language, and the manners of the characters.

Although Dracula is certainly an entertaining read, it is not without its problems. Issues with the narrative logic were the most detracting from the story. To begin, Dracula--we are told and we witness--can go about during the daytime without being destroyed--though he is bereft of his supernatural powers while the sun is up; thus, it seems odd that Dracula does not arm himself so that he can fight his enemies should they overtake him during the daytime.

Another problematic issue is: where are all the other vampires? Dracula has allegedly been alive for hundreds of years, but other than the three women at Castle Dracula and later Lucy, there seem to be no other vampires. How has Dracula sated his thirst for human blood for all these centuries with only four victims (well, five, if we count Mina, who is not completely transformed into a vampire)? The novel seems to indicate that there have been other victims, but then where are these vampires? And why hasn't Dracula sought their help as he seeks to move from his native land to England?

The novel is also much too long. Bram Stoker never says something in one sentence that he can say in three, and he is fond, to an excess, of scenes of elaborate planning as our protagonists plot to hunt and kill Dracula. Moreover, some of the characters (the psychiatric patient, Renfield, and Dr. Seward's friend, Quincey Morris) seem superfluous; these characters and their storylines add little to the plot (apart from evoking our disgust as Renfield eats living flies and spiders and birds).

The language of the novel is problematic as well. First, there is Dr. Van Helsing's weird English: yes, we understand that he is Dutch and so not a native-speaker of English, but his manner of speaking is quite odd granted that he actually has a very good grasp on English. Then there is all the talk of love and pledges of friendship and loyalty among Mina, Jonathan, Arthur, Morris, Dr. Seward, and Dr. Van Helsing; it becomes not only exceedingly repetitive but also sappy and corny.

The portrayal of religion in Dracula leaves much to be desired. It is somewhat annoying as the characters are constantly praying for God's assistance and continually reminding us of the power of crucifixes, communion wafers, and holy water. And one thing makes no sense at all: apparently, Mina can only be freed from Dracula's curse by Dracula's being killed. But why can't religion, which is so powerful that Dracula is repulsed by crucifixes and communion wafers, free Mina from her enthrallment to Dracula? Why is her only hope Dracula being killed? Shouldn't the mystical powers of religion be able to overcome Dracula? Isn't God supposed to be more powerful than the forces of evil? This really wouldn't be an issue except for the fact that the novel is at pains to emphasize the piety of all the characters and their dedication to God and their faith.

Far and away the most disappointing aspect of Dracula is the fact that the most interesting character, Dracula himself, is the one whom we get to know the least. The early sections of Jonathan Harker's letters and journal entries, where he describes his interactions with Dracula, were the best parts of the novel. After this first part of the novel, though, Dracula largely disappears from view, being just a menacing presence offstage. We never get to know Dracula. We don't know why or how he became a vampire and what motivates him now. Why, for example, does he want to leave home, and why move to England rather than some other place? Instead, what we get are Van Helsing's insults, saying that Dracula has a "child-brain." And this makes no sense at all: why would Dracula, a centuries old vampire who has carefully planned and plotted out his move to England, who has a vast library, who apparently was schooled in the arts of the occult, only have a "child-brain"? This is the great sin of Dracula: there is too little Dracula in Dracula.

The above problems notwithstanding, Dracula is still a fun read. I was tearing through the last 100 or so pages, eagerly anticipating the final confrontation between Mina and her friends and Dracula. But I found the ending a bit anticlimactic: Dracula doesn't put up any resistance; they just tip him out of his coffin and behead him and stab him through the heart. I wanted to see some sort of major battle, with Van Helsing using all of his occult knowledge and Dracula summoning the powers of hell to his aid, but all we get is a coffin being tipped over and a largely lifeless body being stabbed and beheaded. So, my eager anticipation was ultimately disappointed: yes, I got the result I wanted (Dracula's death), but it was much too easy.
...more

Like · see review