On Bram Stoker's subconscious
Apr. 27th, 2006 07:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterOver the past few days, I've been re-reading Bram Stoker's Dracula. I've managed to misplace my old copy, so I acquired a new one - the 2003 Penguin Classics edition with new prefaces by Maurice Hindle and Christopher Frayling. All in all, I recommend this edition, as the prefaces and the information they give on Stoker himself are quite enlighting.
The fact that Dracula himself is based partially on a dream Stoker had (the scene with the brides and Dracula calling them back, claiming Jonathan for himself) and partially on Henry Irving, the actor and director who claimed Stoker's slavish adoration for decades, explains a lot. I still think that the first part of the book, Jonathan's diary, is the most engaging, least clinical, most wondrous.And slashy as hell. Especially the aforementioned dream scene.
It's been a while since I read the book, and I didn't remember so much focus on science. It certainly makes updated versions easier, since Seward's dictating his notes just like modern physicians. But gods, do Van Helsing and Seward get on my nerves. Most of what irks me is of course the usual Victorian prejudice against women and genetic-destiny theories. Still, it's good to see that even Stoker realises how pompous and pathetic they're all being, as evidenced in the post-funeral scene with Van Helsing's hysterics (yet another thing I did not recall). Come to think of it, Van Helsing in general is pretty deranged.
On the other hand, I adore Mina, for the quiet way she gets things done. I don't see Dracula as an anti-feminist book. The characters embrace such notions in the narrative, but we are dealing with the most unreliable narrators there can be. Contrarily, every time they fail, it's because they underestimate Mina or try to coddle her. In the end, she's the Sherlock Holmes character that deduces Dracula's route, and it's her scream that saves Van Helsing from the Brides; without her, the men would perish many times over. Tortured and brave, I think she's the key to Dracula.
Jonathan now, while supremely whiny in the first section, gets his own back later on. I'm willing to forgive the earlier transgressions for the core of steel he shows. At one point, he decides that if Mina becomes a vampire, he will not only not kill her, but join her in damnation. I just can't hate a character like that. And is it me, or does he have a quiet sick fascination with vampires that expresses itself this way? He certainly agonises over Mina's choice of death before dishonour, and mentions with relief that he was released from his promise to kill her, something that she never mentions in her own diary.
The character who gives me the most grief is the Big Bad Vamp himself. He falls victim to Victorian theories on criminal behaviour, and is accordingly dumbed down, especially in later segments of the story. I think it's a conflict between Stoker's own fascination with the vampire and the need for good to triumph. There also isn't a good POV for him to use to express this fascination later in the story, which results in an ineffectual monster that perishes in something of an anticlimax. Needless to say, historical!Draculea in my head has spent many a long hour ranting about "child brains" and idiotic Irish brain-addled writers.
(He says it never happened, and it was all the opium's fault anyway.)
In conclusion: the scientific crew can go screw themselves (come to think of it, Seward, Arthur and Quincey are probably doing it anyway; camping buddies, yeah right). Dracula should have turned Mina and used her as leverage to turn Jonathan, and thus commenced a quiet and refined reign of terror in London, possibly with some pet wolves to keep them company. Also, there needs to be more Dracula/Jonathan slash, because so far I've found a grand total of four fics, and that's Not Enough for a pair with chemistry as sizzling as theirs.
In other news, I'm still in thesis-land. Do not taunt on pain of being crushed with motorways and rail links and airports, all constructed cheaply and efficiently with hybrid PPP financing structures. Yo.
The fact that Dracula himself is based partially on a dream Stoker had (the scene with the brides and Dracula calling them back, claiming Jonathan for himself) and partially on Henry Irving, the actor and director who claimed Stoker's slavish adoration for decades, explains a lot. I still think that the first part of the book, Jonathan's diary, is the most engaging, least clinical, most wondrous.
It's been a while since I read the book, and I didn't remember so much focus on science. It certainly makes updated versions easier, since Seward's dictating his notes just like modern physicians. But gods, do Van Helsing and Seward get on my nerves. Most of what irks me is of course the usual Victorian prejudice against women and genetic-destiny theories. Still, it's good to see that even Stoker realises how pompous and pathetic they're all being, as evidenced in the post-funeral scene with Van Helsing's hysterics (yet another thing I did not recall). Come to think of it, Van Helsing in general is pretty deranged.
On the other hand, I adore Mina, for the quiet way she gets things done. I don't see Dracula as an anti-feminist book. The characters embrace such notions in the narrative, but we are dealing with the most unreliable narrators there can be. Contrarily, every time they fail, it's because they underestimate Mina or try to coddle her. In the end, she's the Sherlock Holmes character that deduces Dracula's route, and it's her scream that saves Van Helsing from the Brides; without her, the men would perish many times over. Tortured and brave, I think she's the key to Dracula.
Jonathan now, while supremely whiny in the first section, gets his own back later on. I'm willing to forgive the earlier transgressions for the core of steel he shows. At one point, he decides that if Mina becomes a vampire, he will not only not kill her, but join her in damnation. I just can't hate a character like that. And is it me, or does he have a quiet sick fascination with vampires that expresses itself this way? He certainly agonises over Mina's choice of death before dishonour, and mentions with relief that he was released from his promise to kill her, something that she never mentions in her own diary.
The character who gives me the most grief is the Big Bad Vamp himself. He falls victim to Victorian theories on criminal behaviour, and is accordingly dumbed down, especially in later segments of the story. I think it's a conflict between Stoker's own fascination with the vampire and the need for good to triumph. There also isn't a good POV for him to use to express this fascination later in the story, which results in an ineffectual monster that perishes in something of an anticlimax. Needless to say, historical!Draculea in my head has spent many a long hour ranting about "child brains" and idiotic Irish brain-addled writers.
(He says it never happened, and it was all the opium's fault anyway.)
In conclusion: the scientific crew can go screw themselves (come to think of it, Seward, Arthur and Quincey are probably doing it anyway; camping buddies, yeah right). Dracula should have turned Mina and used her as leverage to turn Jonathan, and thus commenced a quiet and refined reign of terror in London, possibly with some pet wolves to keep them company. Also, there needs to be more Dracula/Jonathan slash, because so far I've found a grand total of four fics, and that's Not Enough for a pair with chemistry as sizzling as theirs.
In other news, I'm still in thesis-land. Do not taunt on pain of being crushed with motorways and rail links and airports, all constructed cheaply and efficiently with hybrid PPP financing structures. Yo.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 09:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:06 am (UTC)Do not mock Roxula. For fear of PAIN :P
(Honestly. Of all my vampire muses, he is the most ranty shouty excitable bloodsucker EVER.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-27 10:50 am (UTC)