I found myself reading Dracula.
I don't read novels much anymore -- it takes an act of will -- the book has to be exceptional. Yet, what defines exceptional is nebulous.
How many of us have actually read Dracula?
We all grew up with vampires. In the 70s and 80s Hammer Horror movies seemed ubiquitous.
I knew of Conan years before I actually read Howard. So, it's interesting to visit THE source material after you've experienced a lifetime of knockoffs.
The fiction since has gotten some things right... and some things, very wrong.
There will be a few spoilers here, but considering this audience, I'm not worried about it.
Did you know, that Dracula could move about freely during the day, that sunlight does not kill vampires? It only weakens them... meaning, they can't transform. Dracula could turn into a dog, a bat, and a mist. But, during the day, he could only transform at sunrise, noon, and sunset. This is barely a weakness. I must say, I prefer what the myth has become in this regard, I like that sunlight destroys vampires.
After the first 40-50 pages (out of 326) Dracula himself is mostly a background figure. Those first 40-50 pages are among the best in the book -- because they take place inside Castle Dracula, which you only ever get one more glance of at the extreme end of the book. And I mean the extreme end. An ending, btw, that just might be the most perplexing anticlimactic that I have ever read. With 20 pages to go, I realized that they (the good guys) only had 20 pages to find, fight, and kill Dracula. The entire story up to this part is drawn out, a slow burn at times, if you will, and then BOOM!... it's over.
There were dead zones for my interests. Much time was spent on Lucy and regarding this, our intelligent heroes sometimes seemed less than intelligent. Also when Mina starts to go ill, you'd think they'd've thought "uh-oh, better put a cross around her neck!"
Renfield only interested me somewhat, in fact his story almost seemed like it should be a separate story all together, and for all that was Renfield, he only served one tiny purpose.
The best parts involved actual vampires, be it Dracula or the Brides, and Lucy when she turned. These are the highlights of the book. Everything else was kind of a soap opera. I did love when Van Helsing finally got to explaining the lore and when he talked, it was often very long winded. This could be good or bad, but you had to pay attention, this is not a book to read if your mind is wandering.
I wish Castle Dracula was explored more, especially at the end. The closest the thing to an actual vampire hunt was when they killed Lucy and were exploring Carfax (the London home of Dracula, at least, one of them.) These were the parts that reminded me of a dungeon crawl -- this is what I wanted more of!
Now, how did I visualize these characters? I find that the over-the-top 1992 film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, was remarkably well cast -- from a visual stand point (the acting -- not so much) but the characters looked the part. In my mind, the characters continually drifted between these actors and the ones going all the way back to the black and whites from ages past. As cool as Peter Cushing was, Anthony Hopkins actually captured Van Helsing well. As for Dracula himself, in my mind's eye, he is a combination of Christopher Lee and Rasputin.
How Hollywood has warped this character. He is not romantic or particularly good looking. There is a hint of the erotic, but Dracula is monstrous through and through. Leave it to Hollywood to manufacture good in him. When they, the vampires, fed, they fed on small children. Dracula had a woman torn apart by wolves as she cried for him to give her back her child -- a child that was food for the vamps! There is no turning that into a heartthrob.
And I like that he was a monster and that the heroes were heroes. It is a tale of light triumphing against darkness. Of unending hope and perseverance. Of men being men and women being so sweet that men would unquestionably die for them.
Good read.
