Take a photo of a barcode or cover
The myth of the vampire has been an intriguing topic of reading for me this year. Introduced with Polidori’s [b:The Vampyre; A Tale|472966|The Vampyre; A Tale|John William Polidori|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347792075l/472966._SX50_.jpg|461235] and refined with Le Fanu’s [b:Carmilla|48037|Carmilla|J. Sheridan Le Fanu|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386923594l/48037._SY75_.jpg|47015], Bran Stoker likely created the most popular iteration of the villain with [b:Dracula|17245|Dracula|Bram Stoker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387151694l/17245._SY75_.jpg|3165724].
There were a number of pros and cons in this novel. The good includes the introduction of the characters of Dracula and Van Helsing, a duo that has well stood the test of time. Moreover, so much of what is now established as key vampire lore is introduced with this book, especially as this is the first in the cannon to tie the vampire with Christianity and repression, keeping in line with the Victorian times in which the book was written.
Dracula represents everything Christianity fears, a being who subverts the natural order and sullies/ruins the women he feeds on. After biting Mina, she seeks biblical aid and has a Wafer (aka: the body of Christ) placed on her forehead. This action burns her flesh and she exclaims, “Unclean! Unclean! Even the Almighty shuns my polluted flesh! I must bear this mark of shame upon my forehead until the Judgement Day.”
Now this shame, that seems to be specific to the women in the book, is certainly a detraction and a part of why I did not rate this book higher. However, giving Dracula the power to defile God and the holy does give him a pretty major villain boost that I feel has allowed for him to remain relevant. This relationship is also reflexive, in that I feel Dracula has shaped a lot of what people visualize as “evil” or “temptation” in present.
That said, that is where the “power” of Dracula more-or-less ends for me. The rest of the book can be a tedious bore, especially when it focuses solely on snooze-fest characters like Jonathan Harker. There is also the fact that it is written in epistolary format, the O.G. found-footage style that was introduced spectacularly as a horror device with Mary Shelley’s [b:Frankenstein: The 1818 Text|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1498841231l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639]. Just as that book outshined it’s contemporary The Vampyre, it does so again with Dracula. Them’s the breaks, at least for me.
Overall, there were things I liked and others I disliked; my final consensus is that this book is okay. Read for yourself and decide!
There were a number of pros and cons in this novel. The good includes the introduction of the characters of Dracula and Van Helsing, a duo that has well stood the test of time. Moreover, so much of what is now established as key vampire lore is introduced with this book, especially as this is the first in the cannon to tie the vampire with Christianity and repression, keeping in line with the Victorian times in which the book was written.
Dracula represents everything Christianity fears, a being who subverts the natural order and sullies/ruins the women he feeds on. After biting Mina, she seeks biblical aid and has a Wafer (aka: the body of Christ) placed on her forehead. This action burns her flesh and she exclaims, “Unclean! Unclean! Even the Almighty shuns my polluted flesh! I must bear this mark of shame upon my forehead until the Judgement Day.”
Now this shame, that seems to be specific to the women in the book, is certainly a detraction and a part of why I did not rate this book higher. However, giving Dracula the power to defile God and the holy does give him a pretty major villain boost that I feel has allowed for him to remain relevant. This relationship is also reflexive, in that I feel Dracula has shaped a lot of what people visualize as “evil” or “temptation” in present.
That said, that is where the “power” of Dracula more-or-less ends for me. The rest of the book can be a tedious bore, especially when it focuses solely on snooze-fest characters like Jonathan Harker. There is also the fact that it is written in epistolary format, the O.G. found-footage style that was introduced spectacularly as a horror device with Mary Shelley’s [b:Frankenstein: The 1818 Text|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1498841231l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639]. Just as that book outshined it’s contemporary The Vampyre, it does so again with Dracula. Them’s the breaks, at least for me.
Overall, there were things I liked and others I disliked; my final consensus is that this book is okay. Read for yourself and decide!