Book review: Dracula by Bram Stoker

 

Dracula by Bram Stoker: the book that is famed for having started the whole fascination with vampires. Even if someone has never read the book they are very likely to still know who and what Dracula is. This vampire has been portrayed over and over again on stage and on the big screen. The two most well known portrayals, I personally believe, are done by Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman (that snickering laughter always manages to send a chill down my spine!). Yes, this book is a familiar read for many, but I still believe it a good idea to do a review or recommendation of it, for the odd chance that someone stumbling along this blog have yet to pick it up. So without further ado:

 

Dracula by Bram Stoker is a tale of friendship, love and the threat of not only a monster, but the monstrosity said monster can stir up within its victims. Jonathan Harker travels to Transylvania where he meets the mysterious Count Dracula. He is there as a solicitor to finalise a property deal. Though he has not been there long before the situation becomes dire and he realises that not everything is what it seems. Back in Great Britain his fiancé Mina and her friend Lucy are enjoying the seaside, but they also soon find themselves in a rather dreadful situation. Then there is Dr. Seward and his patient Renfield at the asylum. Not to mention Dr. Van Helsing whose task it is to gather a group of vampire-slayers and hunt down the monster and his children.

 

This may all seem rather confusing, when just reading my short synopsis of the novel, but trust me: it is a very easy read, in the sense that the narrative is easy to follow and the characters are easy to relate to (except perhaps Van Helsing, but I will get to that later).

 

The story is told as a series of journal entries, newspaper articles and letters. This gives the story an almost detective-like atmosphere as both the reader and the characters connects the dots and form a fully fledged narrative. It is a style which gives the novel a good pace and thus you, as a reader, never feel like the story is brought to a halt for exposition, since every observation of the characters have the potential of being relevant. But even though most of the story is told through a first person narrative the sense of atmosphere is never lost, and the different locations maintain their sense of gloom and hidden terrors (though personally I always laugh when I read the passages involving Renfield). As someone whose second language is English I always am a bit nervous when reaching for one of the classics, since there is a risk of the language being so old fashioned that reading it becomes a chore rather than an enjoyment. But joy! My worries were firmly put to rest when I opened this book. So if you, for one reason or another, tend to avoid classics for this specific reason I would encourage you to pick up this book: is the style a bit old? Yes. Is it so old it becomes a chore to read? Most certainly not!

 

So it is perfect then? Sadly no. It has its flaws; however they are quite small and easy to overcome, at least for me they were. The first one is Dr. Van Helsing. Now, while there is nothing wrong with having a vampire hunter in the book (I believe that part to be essential!) Helsing becomes a bit of a problem every time he opens his mouth; he sounds like a pompous character out of a Shakespearean play. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Shakespeare (Twelfth Night is still one of the most hilarious texts I have ever had to read), but in this particular context it seems out of place and one might find oneself rolling his (or her) eyes after several of Helsing’s speeches. The other flaw I will mention actually was not a flaw for me, but I have come across people for whom this absolutely made them put down the book and never return to it again; the view of women and their role in society. Yes, chauvinism was rampant when this was written. Yes, the vampire can be seen as symbol of the danger of female sexuality and the new woman. If this is a tiebreaker for you I understand, I often find it annoying when classics are so brazen in their misogyny (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and that damn brilliant detective of his!), but I must admit that it never bothered me with this particular novel. I personally have always thought of Mina as sort of softening to the new woman at the beginning of the twentieth century, and I have always viewed her as both smart and strong. Now, is she still in need of a man to save her? Yes. Is her place still at home? Yes. But I’ll take what I can get with this one.

 

Overall I highly recommend this book if you have never read it. And if you have I suggest that you should pick it up again. I might just give mine a third read when the holidays come along and my winter exams are all done.

 

And with that I will leave you for now. Till next time!

 

Xoxo Christina