This is the classic vampire story. (Or at least the most well-known, this wasn't even close to the first vampire-related piece of literature, or tale or anything,) Strange things you probably didn't know about this story: It's told through a series of letters and diary entries, Renfield and Harker are different people, and Bram Stoker is thought to have had an affair with Oscar Wilde, but I doubt that because 1. Stoker married a woman who turned Wilde down, 2. Wilde had better taste than that, come on.
The story starts with Harker going to the count's castle--Harker is a real estate agent and the count is going to London so he will be closer to victims. Harker is trapped in the castle for some time after the count leaves, and I'm not really clear on how he ends up in a British hospital. He escapes somehow, but he had a "brain fever", so he never made it really clear on how he got out... Dracula makes it to England, of course.
My first note is on what was apparently a common enough Victorian phrase--to make your toilet. I can't figure out if it's a general phrase to freshen up, put your PJs on, whatever, or if that was actually how late Victorians said to go to the bathroom. It's just... it's just really silly sounding.
At this point you may be wondering, "Angela, why is your first note hardly ten pages in and your next note on page 297?" Well, there's not a lot to make notes on. Anyway, I actually read the introduction to this book, and the author points out that much of what Dracula and Renfield are parodies or twisted versions of biblical passages. Most of it's pretty obvious (the famous quote "The blood is the life!" is actually out of the Old Testament, believe it or not), but Renfield says that Dracula "'began promising me things--not in words but by doing them'" (297). I'm ninety-nine percent sure that that's from somewhere in the Bible (I'm thinking New Testament, about Jesus), but I can't seem to find the passage. I could just be crazy, but you have to admit, it sounds awfully biblical. Help, please?
My next note is on Dracula's origins--he's expected to have been based off of Vlad Dracul, or Dracul is usually referred to as the "real-life" Dracula. Bram Stoker doesn't specifically say that Vlad Dracula is the Dracula, but Dracula certainly hails from the right location. ...Anyway, though Bram doesn't specify that Dracula is Vlad, van Helsing explains that Dracula was supposedly an incredibly talented and intelligent man in life. A soldier, a statesman, and alchemist (dating him perfectly--though van Helsing also calls him a "'wonderful man'" [320], which doesn't sound like Vlad Dracul), which all can be twisted around to point to Vlad Dracul, but makes it seem awfully iffy... On the other hand, he also supposedly "'knew no fear and no remorse'" (320). According to van Helsing, his brain was just so big and powerful it just didn't shut down at the time of his death. This survival is what gave him his weird power. Now, at the time I'm sure the legend of the vampire wasn't very well explored and this was probably pretty acceptable--still, I prefer the Hellsing version--in desperation, when Vlad is being taken to his death by the Turks, he licks up the blood on the ground in front of him. Because he is apparently a virgin (he was raped as a child, but I guess that didn't count because of his young age, or because it was sodomy?), this enabled him to become a vampire. (This also actually works with the book--Dracula attempts to entice Mina to drink his blood so, presumably, she will become like him completely. This is necessary for Seras too, even after he drank her blood--she was caught in between.
"'A man who has centuries before him can afford to wait and to go slow'" (321).
So eventually everybody gets together to destroy Dracula. Van Helsing, Mina, Harker, and two of Mina's Harker's ex-suitors (Mina and Jonathan marry when Jonathan recovers). One of them is an American--a Texan, to be exact. When trying to decide what weapons to use to defeat Dracula or at least defend themselves from Dracula and his fellows, the Texan pipes up: "'I propose that we add Winchesters to our armament. I have a kind of belief in a Winchester when there is any trouble of that sort around'" (344). Of course.
The most annoying part of the book comes at the end--not at how Dracula dies or that he dies (he doesn't get stabbed with a stake, he gets stabbed in the heart with a bowie knife), but because they kill him, they rejoice because the reign of evil is over and he is redeemed and free to die, and then all of a sudden they're just like "seven years later..." Oh okay, that's cool. Nah, I don't mind. Whatever, Bram. Not stupid at all.
My last bit is on what the book is a comment on--foreigners, sexuality--there have been dozens of things suggested, but I think the only one that really makes sense through and through is sexuality. Dracula is kind of gross looking, but very--um--seductive. I mean, he's biting all the women, he already has three voluptuous vampire-wives (whose sexuality Harker is terrified of--when he kisses them he is stuck between desire and terror--sounds like HarkerRenfield's speech about Dracula are often twisted versions of Bible passages), so... An oversexed false god? Even just the devil in general. The devil isn't known for seducing anybody (to the best of my knowledge), but it's the same basic temptation bit. The essay/introduction to this edition (Barnes and Noble Classics) is very interesting and helpful, especially in relation to what I'm trying to explain. This is what I'd suggest you buy if you were looking to read it... (The introduction was written by Brooke Allen, if you want to try looking it up online or something.)
MLA Citation information: Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Barnes and Noble Classics: New York, 2004.
EDIT: Fun fact, I guess this was originally supposed to be published on August eighteenth, I just pressed "Save Now" instead of "Publish Post". Oooooops. Well, I'm not dead, in any case.
No comments:
Post a Comment