Dracula

... But it was far too dry for me. It also took me ages to read it, and I kinda glossed over the end because I wanted to be done with it. I'm going to give it another shot when Dracula Daily comes by again.

Reading Dracula for me is a huge step outside of my comfort zones. My literary genres tend to be fantasy and science-fiction, and classical dramatic, and/or coming of age, feminist stories etc. I don't think I ever read a horror book, whilst the closest would be Du Maurier's Rebecca (which is Gothic, a genre shared by Dracula).

Dracula is also outside of my psychological comfort zone, as I've never been into vampires and tend to avoid novels where the possible levels of gory and bloody details would potentially trigger my hemophobia (= fear of blood), and in fact, I expected this to happen with this novel, as vampires, in all variations, suck their victims' blood.

I noticed that on several occasions, during reading, I was dozzing off and had at first attributed it to fatigue, the heat and the fan's white noise. I came to understand that it was also, at least in part, my sensitivity to the topics, as a way of my psyche's attempts to protect myself from reading unpleasant and graphic aspects. I this that's why it took me 3 weeks ago to finish.

Quickly after starting, I found myself drawn to Stocker's rich style and love that this novel is written in a form of journals and correspondance written by and between the main characters.

I also love how he gave each one of them a unique voice and interesting personality traits. Sometimes, this takes a form of grandiose dialogues with odd English syntax for foreign characters, whilst others have such a broken English, or thick accents that Bram composed with all the possible typos or abbreviations and slang that I had to decipher their supposed speaking patterns. (let me remind you that I am French, and that I self-taught English).

Each character shares his or her thoughts, sometimes feelings, even worries and fears, in varying degrees of detail.

I found that on a few occasions, Bram's own time-line had been faulty, as announced in footnotes - but, though this is a small flaw, it can be explained through the lack of computers in the late 19th century... Other times, his assumptions weren't very realistic - say, in travel speed.

I was agreeably surprised that the actual depictions of the vampire's bloodsucking were either limited in details, or described through indirect imagery. However, there were other difficult moments for me, in the form of a lunatic, zoophagous character, studied by another (zoophagous= carnivorous), in a scientific capacity, and I find that he has a sort of voyeuristic nature, and quite creepy. As an extremely sensitive vegan suffering from carnophobia, it was quite a challenge to read those parts, through which I tried to speed up and skim, though I didn't skip - not wanting to miss important details as to possible links I'd see between his story-line with the rest of the novel's plots.

Off course, each of these elements - the zoophagous character, the vampire, the blood-sucking, are allegories and social comments, and we also note that just like other authors of his period, Bram include a bit of antisemitism that was quite present in his days, though he seems to have done far less often than Brontë did in Jane Eyre.

These allegories include the most evident transposition for sex (the blood part), and also, the cult of personality through one character's idolization - indeed like revering a god, and I really liked how this part was developed and concluded.

It's interesting to note that because society was in a transitional period, Bram's women characters in Dracula oscillate between servitude to the men characters, and signs of yearnings to break free of male dominance.

For me, the heavy Christian slants of this book are just like the rest of what I think of religious precepts, dogmas and characters : it's all a vast myth. Thus, the weapons imaged to fight the vampire are direct results of Christian beliefs, that I don't follow. I read this is a fantasy aspect, added to the rest of it.

Dracula, as I said, was a very different novel for me, stepping totally outside of my comfort zone. I enjoyed it's style, narrative form and interesting social commentary, though this folk-tale, mythological, allegorical novel.

• I've read very few footnotes and none of the extensive additional, non-fictional parts at the end of the book, which comprises contexts (329-360) reviews and reactions (361-367), dramatic and film variations (370-407) and , criticism (409-482) , Bram Stocker : a chronology (483-485) and selected bibliography (487-488)

Uno dei libri più importanti per la creazione del vampiro come lo conosciamo noi, con tutte le leggende, le credenze e i personaggi iconici ormai di dominio pubblico. Il pregio più grande per me è la qualità della narrazione, che riesce a costruire immagini molto forti che ti si tracciano in testa mentre leggi; sono queste il lascito più prezioso che mi rimane di questo libro.

Just a list of thoughts I had as I thought them:

• Very enjoyable, fast read.
• A little bit too much of all the characters basically falling in love with each other on first meeting and becoming best friends. A lot of “oh won’t you be my best friend for life now since we’ve been through this together?”
• Characters are a little dumb in places where they really shouldn’t be. They literally just got done talking about how Dracula can turn into a bat, and then Quincy sees the bats sitting outside the windows staring at them and they don’t think anything more of it when it flies away.
• Same with how they got done talking about how Dracula can turn into a mist and a control the fog, and Mina goes up to her room and sees the fog coming at her and sees them mist in her room, and everybody sees her getting paler and paler, and they don’t think anything of it.
• Surprisingly scary in places, and even more surprisingly gorey. Not what I expected from a book of the time period.
• On a similar note, a lot more baby-eating and baby-murder than I was expecting.
• Re: Lucy – not everyone has the same blood type. I’m surprised this didn’t come up as a possibility to either Van Helsing or Dr. Steward when Lucy continued failing in health after all the men gave her blood.
• The ending was a let down after how good the rest of the book was. Build for 200+ pages to this epic climax, to then have it all wrapped up over the course of 2 or 3 pages.
• There is a potential Coens Brothers-esque film here in which no vampire exists. Just a nice old count who desperately wants to escape the overly supersticious and paranoid people of rural run-down Romania to move to modern, upbeat London, but is harrassed and eventually murdered by a psychotic professor and a schizophrenic realtor and their cohorts. Do it Hollywood!

Highly recommended; 4 out of 5 vampire bats for general audiences.

Essendo scritto come un diario, l'ho letto seguendo le date (da inizio maggio fino a ieri) e devo dire che è stata una bella esperienza, riesci a percepire lo scorrere del tempo degli eventi narrati.

Dracula was actually quite nice to read. At first, the story advanced quite slowly in my opinion, but towards the middle it became faster. Sometimes the story haunted me in the night, but fortunately this was not that bad and it never lasted long.