Dracula: A Discussion on the Novel
For many of you, this will be the first time you have read Dracula; while you have seen the un-dead in films, some good and some definitely horrible, there are a lot of pop culture references to the Count, but not many of them are accurate. (For example: vampires do NOT sparkle!) Choose an aspect of the novel that surprised you or disappointed you, or even confused you, then tell your class colleagues about your reaction and why!
I read Dracula back in my first year for a course called “Monsters and Philosophy” and I rated it three stars at the time; my opinion has not changed. Parts of it are incredibly engaging, but I have to sift through characters I don’t care about first, and it was a drag to get through. When I finished reading Dracula this time around, I was reading reviews about it and there was a short story mentioned, saying that Stoker took inspiration from it.
The story was called “Carmilla” and, so, I read it. It was written in the same style but had only one point of view, which I felt really helped with consistency, flow, and pace. I’m a sucker for symbolism (oh, the puns) so, naturally, I couldn’t help but laugh a little at the journalistic approach to both stories… Reflection if you will… Something vampires can’t do in a mirror. Even the way it is written is a nod to the ironic weakness of the bloodsuckers. All in all, I thought Dracula was okay, but that the short story, Carmilla, was better. Carmilla is just... tighter. It's mysterious and coy without being boring or vague and I think it's a much better story with the right length for the themes. I would rate Carmilla at 4.5/5 while Dracula a 3/5.
Carmilla hits all the same important Gothic beats that Dracula does, but it does it in such a way that it’s concise and packs more of a punch. It has some similar mythology that it draws from i.e. Slavic lore (dhampir, moroi, striga, strigoi, which is touched on more in Interview with the Vampire) but Stoker does it in a way that seems incredibly underwhelming. His style relies on the imagination of the reader, leaving important bits unsaid—which can be effective—but I found with Dracula it was so underwhelming that I almost had to write the story in my head for Stoker which just seems like laziness.
It would get to a particularly interesting part and the second it got interesting, it would just cut to another character so the important stuff happens behind the scenes, and I found it more annoying than stimulating. I would have preferred Dracula if it had stayed with Jonathon's POV.
It was as though Stoker was like “Hm... oh, yes... that’s-that’s very good. CUT.” so that all we’re left with is the shards of brilliance instead of the entire piece... and I can’t decide if I think that’s a good way of doing it or not. I think he took the old adage ‘less is more’ too far so that you have crumbs instead of a fine dining portion. Like... I don’t want an all-you-can-eat buffet, but I also don’t want church mouse portions either... you know? I want enough, and I want what is there to be delectable and decadent, and instead, I got watery soup in a saucer with only the slightest hint of the zesty goodness I was promised.