Week 2: Dracula, by Bram Stoker (5)

This book was, to me, obviously written for a time when novels were the only form of entertainment. This took me way longer to get through than it really should have, but Dracula was dense, and I am definitely out of practice in novel reading. As far as the novel itself goes, before it became more of a slough and less of a joy to get through, I really enjoyed the set up and anticipation, and how Stoker put breadcrumbs and foreshadowing into the very atmosphere of this novel. Even though Dracula is renowned the world over and adapted into new media and pop culture even now, I found myself enjoying the tale as it was unfolding, and in fact wondering why modern horror doesn’t do what Dracula does so well. 

Modern horror has a habit of favoring the atmosphere more than the characters, making the piece a horror from how the audience has to experience and view horrible things, whereas in Dracula, the horror comes from what horrible things the characters have to deal with. I actually liked and empathized with our motley crew, and felt elated at their victories and heartbroken at their demises. For all that we have the monster and vampire famous the world over from Stoker’s novel, with Van Helsing the Vampire Hunter also rising in pop culture relevance, the honestly touching human interactions that contrast the Count’s tame-by-modern-standards violence. Even as desensitized as I am by modern media, with horror movies like Raw and The Descent and even Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Count’s actions affected me more than any of those movies just because I felt enough for the characters to care that they were upset, to care that they felt violated and scared, to care about their lives. I don’t really care much about most modern horror protagonists, and in reading Dracula, I really wonder why that is. And then I remember that Hollywood and the film industry is a cesspit of one-upsmanship that spits out things like A Serbian Film every now and again and I wonder no longer.

Also, why is it never mentioned, whenever someone mentions Dracula, that the book literally ends on the note that all their heroics and bravery in the face of evil was for and because of Mina, a woman? Mina gets things done in this book, regardless of if it’s expected of her or not, regardless of if she, according to her role and status, really should have or not. And all the men love and respect her more for it. This book has feminist themes in it - it has female friendship between Lucy and Mina, Mina being an equal to Jonathan before and during their marriage, and Mina being a proactive force within the Avenge Lucy Action Team that gets the ball rolling. Mina literally has a gun and is ready to shoot in that final confrontation. Within the novel, Mina is the reason we have the novel. Why is all the surface chatter on google when I type ‘Dracula’ and ‘feminist’ about the three Hypocrites and sexuality? Feminism is about more than just sexual liberty, and I can’t believe a horror book from 1897 is the thing to get it right.