|
Ah, "Dracula". Is there a single book in the English language the
more people know better? Well, actually, yes, because the truth of the
matter is people who think they KNOW everything there is to know about
the story probably have never read the book cover to cover. I realized
this about half way in. So much our culture "knows" about vampires and
Dracula having nothing to with the text of the book, but originate from
Hollywood.
There's not a whole lot of reason to go into the plot too heavily.
The basics have been done more or less in the movies: English real
estate agent goes to Transylvania to sell a house in England to a
mysterious count, Dracula. Dracula is a vampire, intent on finding new
blood abroad. What follows is a mostly terrifying (but occasionally
slow and dull) battle between good and evil, modernity and
superstition, and faith vs. magic.
However, "Dracula" is nowhere near a perfect novel. Bram Stoker,
much like his contemporaries, tended to overwrite. In some instances,
this approach works, particularly in Jonathan Harker's experiences in
Castle Dracula. Here, Stoker is able to convey to the reader (even
those familiar with the story from the films) Harker's genuine
confusion and horror as Dracula's behavior quickly shifts between
cordial and terrifyingly violent. The encounter over the mirror which
doesn't reflect Dracula's reflection, Harker's near attack by the
count's bride (and the surprising erotic overtones), the feeding on
infants, and Harker's discovery of Dracula in his coffin, blood on his
lips, as he lays "like some filthy leech" are vividly drawn and
thoroughly frightening.
Other excellent moments include the log of the ship Dracula arrives
on (pasted, inexplicably into Mina Harker's journal). The desperation
of the captain as his crew is picked off by some monster is truly
haunting.
Also memorable is the character of Renfield, the lunatic who somehow
Dracula reaches out to. His need to eat his way up the food chain is
darkly humourous and grotesque.
Sadly, not everything about the novel is this well done. Abraham Van
Helsing is a Dutch character. Stoker wildly overwrote his speech
patterns and accent. Consequently, he often seems to be more comedy
relief than the wise leader of the band of hunters (definitely an
improvement in the films). Likewise, Quincey Morris, a Texan, often
flirts with stereotype, but Stoker is able to keep the character
serious, if not terribly well developed (which is probably why Quincey
has only appeared in one or two films, despite his pivotal role in
Dracula's demise). The various group meetings to discuss a plan of
action and exchange knowledge often take on the quality of a
superficial prayer meeting.
What amazed me was how much we take for granted about the
Dracula-myth was NOT borne out by the novel. Dracula seems comfortable
wandering out in the daylight without bursting into flame.
Still, on the whole Stoker succeeds. The novel is a rewarding one,
and, despite its age, actually offers some genuine chills. If it's not
perfect (which it's not), it virtues greatly outshine its flaws.
|
|
|
(0 vote)