Dracula - Bram Stoker

Bram Stoker's classic tale of gothic horror has been reviewed to death so I will attempt to approach it from a relatively fresh angle. In particular I wish to avoid dwelling on the obvious themes of subversive sexuality which most critics are obsessed with churning over. Written in epistolary fashion, the novel begins with English solicitor Jonathan Harker travelling through Transylvania to meet a mysterious client interested in purchasing a London property. After a harrowing coach journey through the wolf infested Carpathians, he arrives at a sinister castle where he meets his equally sinister host, Count Dracula. It soon becomes apparent that the Count is a less than savoury character, his idea of hospitality being to imprison his guest with the view of later 'feeding' him to his trio of sex-starved vampire brides. Not a particularly bad fate by today's standards, but unthinkable to a repressed Victorian.

Dracula's goal, naturally, is world domination, but to do this he needs to set up shop in London. Here we have my personal reading of the text, namely as a xenophobic cautionary against allowing immigration to the fair shores of England. Dracula is Romanian, he is a bigamist aristocratic foreigner with a hooked nose and an insatiable thirst for procreation. The women he feeds upon wither, die and are reborn into his dark religion - vampire whores to do his bidding. The message could not be clearer, although it is but one reading in a multitude of theories. The Conservative forces of good who take arms against the Count and his undead legion include Harker and his wife Mina, an English Lord, a doctor, a Texan, and a debatably half insane Dutchman, Van Helsing. It is a clash against the civilised West and the barbaric East; "As the Count leaned over me and his hands touched me... a horrible feeling of nausea came over me."

Racist undertones aside, what did I actually think of the novel? It was my second time reading it as the interval had been long enough for me to forget most of what I'd initially disliked. The plot itself is tense, thrilling, innovative for its time and certainly original. In the hands of a skilled novelist, complete with lots of editing, it could have even been great. As Stoker wrote it, the narrative is too long and repetitive, the structure is clumsy and unpolished and the tone is far too serious. Other major annoyances were Van Helsing's long spiels of broken English, and Renfield's subplot, a bug-eating patient in a mental asylum. The excruciatingly lengthy build towards the climax drags on to the point where Stoker seemingly exhausts himself. When the climax finally does arrive, the story crumples and dies under its own exertion. A brief, cringeworthy epilogue tries to tie things up but fails to do so satisfactorily. Recommended to lovers of ponderous gothic horror.

Rating: 3/5