Dracula by Bram Stoker

A few decades ago I read this book hot on the heels of reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  I did it a great disservice by comparing the two.  At the time Dracula seemed a bit cheap by comparison: the psychology was shallower, and the good guys were too good and all seemed stamped from the same mould.  I dismissed it as a lesser work; however, upon re-reading, I can see more clearly the merits of Stoker's novel.

The story of Dracula is presented to the reader in the form of extracts from various diaries, journals, letters, telegrams and newspaper clippings.  This allows us to see the story from multiple points of view, and Stoker does an admirable job of blending direct observation, internal dialogue and reported speech so that the narration remains fresh and lively throughout what is a long novel.

Of course, the genre is horror; and as willing participants in the game, we are going to allow Stoker to scare us.  But how does he go about his task?  He introduces us to one of the heroes, Jonathan Harker, and through him we soon meet the monster Count Dracula.   The Count is hospitable, thoughtful and erudite; however, the scenario "reeks of wrongness" (thank you, Diana Wynne Jones for giving the world that phrase).  By degrees, Harker's situation descends into a nightmare.  

It is notable that things are never so nightmarish than when the Count is absent and is only alluded to or is only seen from afar, and that is about all we get of him for most of the book after the first few chapters.  But it works, and it does intensify the horror.  Tolkien used the same device: Sauron is never seen (except as a distant, roving eye) and is never heard (except in one case of reported speech), and yet the horror of his threat is almost always present.

Stoker, it seems, is good at the bad guys and bad at the good guys.  The Count and the lunatic Renfield are memorable villains.  Mr & Mrs Harker, Dr Seward, et al. are quite unmemorable and hardly distinguishable in their thoughts and sentiments.  Only the quirky and indefatigable Van Helsing rises above the blandness of his companions (but only just).  The point, I think, is that we are to insert ourselves into the places of the good guys at each change of perspective so that we, too, can feel the full impact of the horror that besets them.  Too much eccentricity on the part of the character may mean a loss of empathy on our part.  Still, a bit more delineation would have been nice.

I am very glad to have read this book again.  Despite my familiarity with the story, Stoker was able to touch my sense of horror and set it humming.