Posts
In some ways, the novel resembles little more than an epistolary Victorian sex fantasy. Fans of "Twilight" will hate this book; that quality alone would sway my opinion in its favor. You could write off Dracula as a simple horror novel or attempt to compare Stoker's vision with other vampire novels. That would not be veracious to this novel, nor would it be accurate.
Stoker's was the first popular novel of the vampire genre, and remains arguably one of the best. (Polidori's The Vampyre--a portrayal of the destructive genius of Byron--was the first.) Stoker has managed to produce a novel that is simultaneously a masterful study of High Victorian morals and strictures; a horror novel in which good does not ultimately triumph; flawed protagonists and an utterly alluring evil. This Dracula does not invite empathy, nor is he portrayed as misunderstood. He is simply an ancient evil that will either destroy or be destroyed. Modern readers unfamiliar with the premise may find the Victorian formal language off-putting. However for those of us that grew up with a literary diet laced with large helpings of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Spenser, Byron, and Tennyson Stoker's prose is clear and maintains a pace appropriate for a horror novel.
For those of you that cut your teeth on such lesser vampire offerings such as Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton, this book may not be to your taste. Stoker's vampire is not a sexy, well-dressed fop with a penchant for lace ascots and leather pants. There is no doubt that Stoker's Dracula is a fundamental force of evil; yet he is also intelligent, passionate, and cultured. Dracula is not the focus of the novel, but he is the force that propels everything in it. The book is a classic in every way without emphasizing the stuffy, nauseating over-analysis that often accompanies that phrase.
Stoker's was the first popular novel of the vampire genre, and remains arguably one of the best. (Polidori's The Vampyre--a portrayal of the destructive genius of Byron--was the first.) Stoker has managed to produce a novel that is simultaneously a masterful study of High Victorian morals and strictures; a horror novel in which good does not ultimately triumph; flawed protagonists and an utterly alluring evil. This Dracula does not invite empathy, nor is he portrayed as misunderstood. He is simply an ancient evil that will either destroy or be destroyed. Modern readers unfamiliar with the premise may find the Victorian formal language off-putting. However for those of us that grew up with a literary diet laced with large helpings of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Spenser, Byron, and Tennyson Stoker's prose is clear and maintains a pace appropriate for a horror novel.
For those of you that cut your teeth on such lesser vampire offerings such as Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton, this book may not be to your taste. Stoker's vampire is not a sexy, well-dressed fop with a penchant for lace ascots and leather pants. There is no doubt that Stoker's Dracula is a fundamental force of evil; yet he is also intelligent, passionate, and cultured. Dracula is not the focus of the novel, but he is the force that propels everything in it. The book is a classic in every way without emphasizing the stuffy, nauseating over-analysis that often accompanies that phrase.
