Here it is: the gothic novel, about the
vampire. Is there a book that more exemplifies gothic
fiction than Bram Stoker's Dracula? It’s all here: lengthy, atmospheric description; lengthy, wordy
dialogue; and finally, a sinister fuckboy lurking about in the background. The first
four chapters alone are one big Castle of Otranto
ripoff! Written and published towards the end of what we might consider
the "golden age" of gothic fiction, it’s as much a picture of Victorian
England as it is a tale of everybody’s favorite bloodsucking Romanian
noble. Adapted a zillion times, sequelized nearly as often, its most
famous character has become something of a public domain character as
can be seen in the likes of Castlevania. Put simply, Dracula is everywhere, and lurks in just about any vampire setting you can think of.
Written as an epistolary novel, the story is told through lengthy diary entries and letters, thus seeding the concept of survival horror games telling their stories in documents scattered about. The sheer level of detail in these letters can be unrealistic — but then, so too are those survival horror notes, so it’s a proud tradition I guess? The quick version is this: when a young real estate lawyer from England gets sent to Transylvania to help a wealthy noble buy property in London, he gets wrapped up in a sinister plot by a centuries-old vampire to seek new prey in the more populous and technologically advanced England, and only a small group of friends who know the truth can stop the threat.
There’s a lot to take away from this book; it’s been analyzed to death over the years from multiple perspectives. The role of gender is an obvious one, and the book is somewhat of two minds on it. On one hand, Stoker clearly has Ideas about Women, and uses the main female character, Mina, as his mouthpiece to push back against this newfangled Feminism. On the other hand, Mina not only is the smartest of the characters, but every time they try to exclude her, bad stuff happens. There’s also the subtle racial/ethnic messaging. Dracula and his Szgany (implied to be Romani people) cronies are a clear symbol of British fears of an invasion of foreign hordes on their proper English shores, in part due to the growing size and influence of the German Empire, a fear that seemed justified at the outbreak of the Great War. Guess they had to wait another century or so for Brexit, huh? (Fun fact: Stoker was Irish.)
In
spite of its gothic trappings, the novel also sort of nudges a little
at what would later be known as weird fiction. Stoker was highly
interested in new technologies, especially advances in medical science,
and so our heroes use science as a weapon against Dracula. This sense of
modernity against ancient evil certainly suggests a message all its
own, one that isn’t exactly undercut by the use of crucifixes and
classic anti-vampire remedies such as garlic. One
of the bigger departures in this book from gothic fiction as a whole is
how action-oriented it can be at times. While characters at times can
be long-winded (especially Abraham van Helsing, the story's chief occult expert; it's all the more frustrating because
of his stereotypically accented English) the action often moves
swiftly. It’s obvious that Stoker had a background in theatre — the
longwinded speeches by many of the characters definitely seem better
suited to a stage play. The few added moments of levity feel like a
Shakespearean joke as well. (Dracula in a straw hat, anyone?) Or
how about Quincey, the rich cowboy? The way he seems to be a minor
character compared to the rest, existing only to speak in an exaggerated
American slang only to switch to British English in the second half,
and then out of all the main characters, he’s the one who dies?
I don’t really know what I could possibly add to the conversation about Dracula that hasn’t already been discussed to death. I guess all I can say is that while the book is definitely a relic of its time, it’s still one of the more entertaining gothic novels out there.
-june❤

No comments:
Post a Comment