Dracula Writing Style
By Operation Victor "Definitely not Trevor" Frankenstein
After reading reading 388 pages of Bram Stoker's famous novel, I think I can finally give a solid interpretation of Stoker's writing style... (Also sorry for taking so long on this because IE crashed on me... Twice.)
As I said before in a previous blog, Bram Stoker is proficient in creating suspense while still moving the plot along. Ever since the beginning of the book Dracula remained present, but ominous. Johnathan Harker (the protagonist) unaware of who Count Dracula was (despite being invited to Castle Dracula) states, "I could hear a lot of queer words, for there were many nationalities in the crowd; so I quietly got my polyglot dictionary from my bag and looked them out. I must say they were not cheering to me, for amongst them were "Ordog"-Satan, "pokol"-hell, "stregoica"-witch, "vrolok" and "vlkoslak"-both of which mean the same thing, one being Slovak and the other Servian for something that is either werewolf or vampire." (Page 36)
Uneasy, and quite worried, Johnathan starts to question his objectives and fearing for the worst, "This was not very pleasant for me, just starting for an unknown place to meet an unknown man; but everyone seemed so kind-hearted, and so sorrowful, so sympathetic that I could not but be touched." Stoker makes his characters relatable, and for good reason. You feel Jonathan's pain, confusion and despair throughout the novel, creating a suspenseful and melancholy for the audience. However, that's not all, since I haven't cover the antagonist, *spoilers, okay not really because you should have saw this coming unless you've been living under a rock* Count Dracula himself.
Stoker must have spent along time on this novel, because of it's wide historical context on Transylvania, Romania and several other European countries. However, what sticks out is the Count himself. Acknowledging Frankestien for a bit, most horror readers are aware that pop culture, movies, etc tend to alternate the "vampire image" overtime.
(Sorry I couldn't resist...)
Johnathan describes Dracula as follows, "His face was a strong- a very strong- aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiar arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and his bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, who remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was on extremely pallor." (Page 48)
Dracula compared to other interpretations on the Count, seems human more or less (with the exception of fangs, and hid distinguished nose). Stoker most likely did this on purpose to level with his audience. Despite the "helpless old man inviting house guest over" trope has been done before in stories like "Hansel and Gretel", it has never been so refined...
Yet I still find it funny that Johnathan uses garlic, the crucifix, a wild rose... Too bad Dracula didn't order... the steak (just kidding, he gets stabbed by a knife... and now I just forgot to put spoilers)
The Count, despite being no more that a blood-sucking, shape-shifting force of nature, he's also emotional. Soon before Johnathon falls unconscious, the
Dracula, like said before, has a very general writing style. Compared to novel like Frankenstein, again, is that it doesn't require critical thinking to soak in the context. Granted, Frankenstein didn't give me a five hour history course on the Hun, Carpathians and Romania History, however, Dracula didn't give me a story about a trouble scientist and a hormonal, emotional monster that has a great ending... but made fall asleep 7 chapters into the book. Dracula is a great novel (and despite ranting so is Frankenstein), and its writing style is superb, but what puts it over the top as my favorite horror novel (sorry Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Coraline) is it's "letter/diary" format.
Throughout the novel, Jonathan and several other characters are revealed, communicating and acted out through letters/personal diaries, for example:
MY FRIEND,- Welcome to the Carpathians. I am anxiously expecting you. Sleep well tonight. At three tomorrow the diligence will start for Bukovina; a place on it is kept for you. At Borgo Pass my carriage will await you and will bring you to me. I trust that your journey from London has been a happy one, and that you will enjoy your stay in my beautiful land.
Your Friend,
DRACULA,
(Page 34)
This method is simply to extended communication (since this book came in the late 1800s), but it works pretty well as far as the plot goes.
Unfortunately, Dracula's ending pulls a "Mary Shelley" and drags on way too long.
*If you don't want spoilers, skip this part*
"I felt a mighty power fly along my arm ; and it was without surprise I saw that the monster cower back before a similar movement made spontaneously by each one of us. It would be impossible to describe the expression of hate and baffled malignity- of anger and hellish rage- which came over the Count's face. His waxen hue became greenish-yellow by the contrast of his burning eyes, and the red scar on the forehead showed on the pallid skin like a palpitating wound". (Page 347) After a bit more flavor text, Dracula turns to ashes, Quincey (another main character) dies from fatal wounds delivered by The Count (I'm still not sure why Quincey needed to die though despite Stoker's reasoning) and Johnathan and Co spend the rest of the book playing patty cake and gossip over how many a female vampire lusted with Johnathan behind closed doors.
Still, the novel has set a standard for modern writers, and movies to come. Straightforward and general, Bram Stoker provides a proficient story with a sufficient ending that I think both classic and contemporary horror fans would enjoy.
Also Count Orlok from Nosferatu (1922) is the best vampire ever made...
Source:
Stoker, Bram, and Glennis Byron. Dracula. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1998. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment