Take a photo of a barcode or cover
The first thing I would like to note is that I am incredibly disappointed that Stoker references the New Woman movement (demonstrating a knowledge of and interest in the subject of feminism and women’s rights) but does so only once, and pursues the concept no further. Granted, Mina Harker is “granted a place at the table” of the War Council, so to speak. However, though she proves to be willingly helpful and ultimately useful, even thoroughly necessary, to their cause, she is almost never given the opportunity to be the master of her own choices. Her husband, Van Helsing, and the others are constantly reevaluating whether to include her in their plans; first, so as not to disturb her delicate feminine sensibilities, later; because she is in the thrall of their enemy (though her husband did succumb to him first).
Stoker depicts Mina Harker as the most Godly, intelligent, and sweet woman that there ever was, yet; he takes great pains to compare her to men in a way that consistently reduces her to a weak, simpering woman who is almost entirely dependent on male counsel and companionship. Though I admit this may be an anachronistic judgement on my part, seeing as one can hardly expect a man of the 20th century to be a feminist (or even the 21st), I grew weary of Stoker’s characterization of Mina. I did find it interesting that he ends the novel by reiterating how beloved she is by the men around her; somehow attempting to raise her further in our esteem through their confidence in her.
In terms of my general judgment of this novel, I cannot help but fault Stoker for his slow pacing. Why must he keep his devoted readers on the edge of suspense while simultaneously boring them with repetitive instances of travel, hypnotism, and valiant quests that all seem to lead to the same conclusion? The ending of this novel, including perhaps the last 100 or so pages, was appropriately paced. The pacing of the remainder of the book is the reason this took me 3 weeks to read.
This is an extremely approachable classic, the pacing notwithstanding. I believe that a high school student could certainly read and absorb the majority of this great work of the supernatural. The vocabulary is mainly relatively simple, aside from the inclusion
of a not insignificant amount of Latin expressions, French phrases, and colloquialisms or allusions that would clearly have been recognizable to Stoker’s contemporary readers. The annotations to the Oxford edition are extremely helpful in this regard; every reference is explained, every bit of foreign language translated. Surprisingly, what I found the hardest to muddle through were Stoker’s phonetic and alliterative attempts to reproduce accents; Scottish, or Cockney.
One cannot help but compare, I think, one large-looming supernatural fiction to its great literary predecessors. I am referring, of course, to Le Fanu’s Carmilla and Shelley’s Frankenstein. Though I have not yet had the occasion to read Carmilla, Stoker doubtlessly owes it much in his own vampire tale. This influence seems to be apparent more through cryptic references or in the addended “Dracula’s Guest,” and not through any direct tribute in the text. However, I will judge this better when I have read both novels. As for a comparison with Frankenstein, I believe this novel to be less obscure and more accessible, but, in turn, somewhat less philosophical and grandiose in the themes it broaches. God, religion, myth, creation, the limitations of humanity, and science are certainly treated by both authors, though perhaps unequally. I would like to do further research into Stoker’s influences, which also include Faust’s Goethe and Emily Gerard’s folkloric text “Transylvanian Superstitions.” The Scholomance seems particularly fascinating to me,
a great source of literary and fictive fodder.
Overall, this was an enjoyable read, which lends itself to much philosophical consideration, provides an introduction to many historical and geographical references, and lives up to the creation of a legendary figure much beloved today in fiction, romance, and folklore.
Carmilla will absolutely be my next read.
4/5 ⭐️
Stoker depicts Mina Harker as the most Godly, intelligent, and sweet woman that there ever was, yet; he takes great pains to compare her to men in a way that consistently reduces her to a weak, simpering woman who is almost entirely dependent on male counsel and companionship. Though I admit this may be an anachronistic judgement on my part, seeing as one can hardly expect a man of the 20th century to be a feminist (or even the 21st), I grew weary of Stoker’s characterization of Mina. I did find it interesting that he ends the novel by reiterating how beloved she is by the men around her; somehow attempting to raise her further in our esteem through their confidence in her.
In terms of my general judgment of this novel, I cannot help but fault Stoker for his slow pacing. Why must he keep his devoted readers on the edge of suspense while simultaneously boring them with repetitive instances of travel, hypnotism, and valiant quests that all seem to lead to the same conclusion? The ending of this novel, including perhaps the last 100 or so pages, was appropriately paced. The pacing of the remainder of the book is the reason this took me 3 weeks to read.
This is an extremely approachable classic, the pacing notwithstanding. I believe that a high school student could certainly read and absorb the majority of this great work of the supernatural. The vocabulary is mainly relatively simple, aside from the inclusion
of a not insignificant amount of Latin expressions, French phrases, and colloquialisms or allusions that would clearly have been recognizable to Stoker’s contemporary readers. The annotations to the Oxford edition are extremely helpful in this regard; every reference is explained, every bit of foreign language translated. Surprisingly, what I found the hardest to muddle through were Stoker’s phonetic and alliterative attempts to reproduce accents; Scottish, or Cockney.
One cannot help but compare, I think, one large-looming supernatural fiction to its great literary predecessors. I am referring, of course, to Le Fanu’s Carmilla and Shelley’s Frankenstein. Though I have not yet had the occasion to read Carmilla, Stoker doubtlessly owes it much in his own vampire tale. This influence seems to be apparent more through cryptic references or in the addended “Dracula’s Guest,” and not through any direct tribute in the text. However, I will judge this better when I have read both novels. As for a comparison with Frankenstein, I believe this novel to be less obscure and more accessible, but, in turn, somewhat less philosophical and grandiose in the themes it broaches. God, religion, myth, creation, the limitations of humanity, and science are certainly treated by both authors, though perhaps unequally. I would like to do further research into Stoker’s influences, which also include Faust’s Goethe and Emily Gerard’s folkloric text “Transylvanian Superstitions.” The Scholomance seems particularly fascinating to me,
a great source of literary and fictive fodder.
Overall, this was an enjoyable read, which lends itself to much philosophical consideration, provides an introduction to many historical and geographical references, and lives up to the creation of a legendary figure much beloved today in fiction, romance, and folklore.
Carmilla will absolutely be my next read.
4/5 ⭐️