‘Dracula’ and the Bible

NBC television has a new 10-episode miniseries this fall called Dracula. It’s based on the famous vampire from Bram Stoker’s 1897 gothic novel.

I’ve never read Stoker’s novel. I’m not sure I could. I’m not sure any of us could. It’s still in print and readily available — you can download a free ebook version here, or read it online if you like. But those of us sitting here, in 2013, will still have a very hard time reaching back to 1897 to read the book as Stoker intended it to be read or as its first readers read it at the turn of the last century.

Stoker’s language and style may seem a bit archaic, but that’s not the main problem. The main problem is that Stoker introduced symbols and characters and creatures that have, for more than a century, been redefined, reinterpreted and re-presented dozens of times over. If I go back to the original book and encounter those symbols, I can’t help but bring with me all the new meanings that have attached to them over the intervening years.

When Stoker wrote of “Dracula” and “vampires” and “Transylvania” he did not and could not have meant all the things that I cannot help but take those words to mean, to imply, to connote. It would require enormous effort on my part — not just willpower, but extensive research and scholarship — to encounter Stoker’s words and symbols without all that extra and extraneous meaning those words and symbols have since collected and accreted. I’m not sure that project could ever be wholly successful.

The cover of the first edition of the book shown here has just four words on it, but it’s immensely difficult to read even those four words without importing and imposing a vast amount of information they don’t actually contain. The “Dracula” I already know is not the same thing as the “Dracula by Bram Stoker.” My Dracula includes a thousand things Bram Stoker never dreamed of — Bela Lugosi and the Universal movies, Ed Wood and Abbot and Costello, Buffy, Twilight, The Lost Boys, Sesame Street, Count Chocula, Nosferatu, Willem Dafoe, Barnabas Collins, Salem’s Lot, True Blood, Louis and Lestat, and dozens of other things I’ve forgotten reading or watching even though their influence lingers, unacknowledged.

Here are the opening paragraphs of Stoker’s novel:

3 May. Bistritz.—Left Munich at 8:35 P. M., on 1st May, arriving at Vienna early next morning; should have arrived at 6:46, but train was an hour late. Buda-Pesth seems a wonderful place, from the glimpse which I got of it from the train and the little I could walk through the streets. I feared to go very far from the station, as we had arrived late and would start as near the correct time as possible. The impression I had was that we were leaving the West and entering the East; the most western of splendid bridges over the Danube, which is here of noble width and depth, took us among the traditions of Turkish rule.

We left in pretty good time, and came after nightfall to Klausenburgh. Here I stopped for the night at the Hotel Royale. I had for dinner, or rather supper, a chicken done up some way with red pepper, which was very good but thirsty. (Mem., get recipe for Mina.) I asked the waiter, and he said it was called “paprika hendl,” and that, as it was a national dish, I should be able to get it anywhere along the Carpathians. I found my smattering of German very useful here; indeed, I don’t know how I should be able to get on without it.

Having had some time at my disposal when in London, I had visited the British Museum, and made search among the books and maps in the library regarding Transylvania; it had struck me that some foreknowledge of the country could hardly fail to have some importance in dealing with a nobleman of that country. I find that the district he named is in the extreme east of the country, just on the borders of three states, Transylvania, Moldavia and Bukovina, in the midst of the Carpathian mountains; one of the wildest and least known portions of Europe. I was not able to light on any map or work giving the exact locality of the Castle Dracula, as there are no maps of this country as yet to compare with our own Ordnance Survey maps; but I found that Bistritz, the post town named by Count Dracula, is a fairly well-known place. I shall enter here some of my notes, as they may refresh my memory when I talk over my travels with Mina.

In the population of Transylvania there are four distinct nationalities: Saxons in the South, and mixed with them the Wallachs, who are the descendants of the Dacians; Magyars in the West, and Szekelys in the East and North. I am going among the latter, who claim to be descended from Attila and the Huns. This may be so, for when the Magyars conquered the country in the eleventh century they found the Huns settled in it. I read that every known superstition in the world is gathered into the horseshoe of the Carpathians, as if it were the centre of some sort of imaginative whirlpool; if so my stay may be very interesting. (Mem., I must ask the Count all about them.)

That’s written as a journal entry by Jonathan Harker — a character portrayed and revisited so many times that he has his own IMDB page with dozens of entries. It’s not easy to encounter him there in Stoker’s novel without some of those many portrayals reshaping what I read.

When Stoker’s first readers encountered that passage, they couldn’t know what awaited Harker at the end of his journey. We can’t help but know — or can’t help but think we know. This story is familiar to us, but the story we’re familiar with is not identical to the story Stoker is telling. And so, for us today, the story Stoker is telling may be inseparable from the story we’re already familiar with.

Stoker’s original story is, for us today, at the center of some sort of imaginative whirlpool. And so it is, for us, an enormous challenge to encounter that story itself — as itself — without being influenced by all the allusions and accretions swirling around it, on top of it, under it and through it.

All of this presents a challenge for Cole Haddon and Daniel Knauf, the creators of that new Dracula show for NBC. How will they choose to tell this story? What version or versions of the story will they choose to tell?

One approach would be to attempt a faithful adaptation — painstakingly separating the original tale from all the later cultural additions and reinterpretations of it. That’s a tricky business, first of all because it’s hard. “Faithful adaptation” may be an oxymoron. One can be faithful, or one can adapt, but it may not always be possible to do both at once. Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula took this approach, but as that awkward double attribution suggests, that film didn’t so much give us Stoker’s Dracula as it did Coppola’s Stoker.

Another problem with the “faithful adaptation” approach is that it tends to upset some of Dracula’s fans. Their idea of what’s “canonical” may be only a loosely overlapping Venn diagram with Stoker’s original canon. Cut away all of the extraneous later additions that have attached themselves over time to the original story and you’ll be cutting away many fans’ favorite parts. If Jonathan Rhys Myers is more like Stoker’s Dracula than like Bela Lugosi, that’s bound to disappoint some viewers who wanted to see Lugosi, or to upset others for whom Gary Oldman represents the “authentic” Count. Fans may be frustrated if Oliver Jackson-Cohen’s Jonathan Harker turns out to be nothing like Keanu Reeves. (OK, yes, that last bit is a joke.)

And so a second approach would be to set aside the difficult project of separating the original from the expanded cultural phenomenon. Instead of trying to faithfully adapt Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the creators of the show might choose to tell a story about our Dracula — the character we all know or think we know today, complete with all of the additions and subtractions, elaborations, amendments and emendations. This approach is easier, but no less complicated and no less fraught with the danger of disappointing the fans because it requires a host of choices about which parts of “our” Dracula to keep and which to cast aside.

These two approaches seem almost like opposites. The first says that the story is what the text says, and that our task is thus to cut away and to cut through everything else to try to get back to the pure, unspoiled essence of the original, authoritative text. The second says that the story is ours, not just Stoker’s, and so Stoker is just one of many participants in a community. In the second approach, then, our task becomes sorting through all the many contributions from the many voices in that community to locate at the center that which seems most true to our story.

In practice, though, these two very different approaches are never quite so abstract and separate as they may seem. The unspoiled original and authoritative text will always be determined and interpreted by the community that belongs to it and to which it belongs. It’s words and symbols and characters can never mean anything wholly separate from what they mean to that community. And Stoker’s voice will always have a privileged place in that community of voices, his original words will always be there at the center, no matter how large the imaginative whirlpool swirling around them grows to be.

And but so anyway, I titled this post “‘Dracula’ and the Bible,” and now I’ve gone on and on about the Bible without hardly even mentioning Dracula. Sorry about that.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

What if we learned about the Bible from the people who got it right?
'Game of Thrones' and the Bible
Rekindled with fire from above
The Psalms and the word of God
  • hidden_urchin

    Genius.

    Also, I may have to check out this miniseries. It sounds like it might actually be interesting.

  • chrisalgoo

    Parables are wonderful things.

  • themunck

    I still remember the first time I read Dracula. My school library’s copy had the first page missing, so to me the story will always start with “and small round hats”.

  • AnonaMiss

    That’s beautiful. I may have to steal that phenomenon as a bit of imagery sometime.

  • Launcifer

    Heh. I’d want to finish any book that started with the phrase “And small round hats” on the off-chance that I’d discovered half the answer to an ontological conundrum. That’s really brightened my evening.

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    “And Small Round Hats”.

    Sounds like the name of a band. Right up there with “Crazy Children in the Attic” and “Fetuses of the Damned”.

  • Launcifer

    Perhaps it’s the super weakness of Men Without Hats?

  • SDGlyph

    *slow clap*

  • Abby Normal

    I read the original book in high school and loved it at the time–lots of Victorian over-the-top melodrama which I was waaaay into back then. (The part where Arthur has to stake and then decapitate his own wife in order to free her soul was super romantic–what can I say, if 16 isn’t the right age to give into your goth tendencies, when is it.)

    I was very let down by Coppola’s version–too much “sexy vampire” business for my taste. And Keanu always sounds like Ted no matter what he’s in.

  • Boidster

    Geez, spoilers. :-)

  • Abby Normal

    While I’m at it, the monster at the end of the book was actually Grover. :)

  • The_L1985

    D: No!

    Next you’ll be telling me that Dumbledore dies in the Harry Potter series. And that he’s killed by, oh I don’t know, Snape or something. And we all know that that’s absurd.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Wait, are we spoiling Dracula or the Bible, here? Does Jesus come back? Wait, don’t tell me!

  • Launcifer

    From reading this, I figure he comes back as Keanu Reeves or something. Hell, maybe Jesus was Keanu Reeves all along and didn’t even know it.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Wait, Charlemagne was Jesus?

  • Launcifer

    No, no, Charlemagne killed Mozart. Spencer Dryden was Jesus.

  • Iain King
  • Launcifer

    Wait, Grover Cleveland was Dracula? Guess that explains why he only got one term.

  • Tom

    “I was very let down by Coppola’s version–too much “sexy vampire” business for my taste.”

    But the whole THING was about sex – all that exchange of body fluids. Foreigners coming in and stealing our women… It’s all very fin de siècle.

    Not like the most recent fin de siècle vampires – which seem to be much more inspired by panic about drugs than sex – all that talk of serums and being a slave to the ‘thirst’.

  • Abby Normal

    I was pretty young when I read it (and a late bloomer to boot), so I didn’t pick up on the sexual overtones. As I saw it, getting bit by a vampire was something you *didn’t* want to happen, therefore it couldn’t possibly be sexy.

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    Obviously this was LONG before Edward Cullen (sparkle sparkle).

  • Abby Normal

    Oh yes.

    I sometimes wonder if younger me would’ve gotten into Twilight–I read plenty of crappybooks back then (*cough*VC Andrews), but I might also have just as easily dismissed them because the popular girls were reading them.

  • Turcano
  • tricksterson

    The cne with Harker and the three female vamps is the first time I can remember getting seriously sexually aroused by a work of fiction.

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    Have you ever read Fred Saberhagen’s The Dracula Tape? It’s where Vlad Dracula tells HIS side of the story, i.e. Stoker’s Dracula from Dracula’s POV, pointing out every plot hole in the original novel.

  • esmerelda_ogg

    And with a happy ending, too!

  • Caddy Compson

    I very much enjoyed the book in a lot of levels, but what’s most interesting for me (former English major) is the fact that it’s easy to read the books either as an almost protofeminist text OR as deeply misogynistic. You can make compelling arguments for both.

    Wait, are we talking about the Bible or Dracula?

  • fraser

    I got to talk to Dacre Stoker last year about his published Dracula sequel (yes, he is a modern-day relative of Bram). He mentioned he’d deliberately gone with vampires burning up in sunlight because even though it’s not in the original, it’s what people expect.
    He did have a good rationale for his divergences, though: Van Helsing recruited Stoker to immortalize him in print only to have Stoker radically rewrite Van Helsing’s account to something more marketable.

  • FearlessSon

    I actually prefer the “weakened by the light” take on vampires to the “burn up in sunlight”.

    I mean, even at night you still have the moon and the stars, just with less intensity than is experience during the day. Then you run into all kinds of issues with a modern understanding of light and all the components that go into sunlight, and which among those things is particularly harmful to vampires compared to any other source of light. Too easy to weaponize that with modern technology when you can just make a special flashlight that kills vampire’s dead. On the other hand, if it simply weakens rather than kills vampires, you cannot make it a completely foolproof system.

  • fraser

    That’s fine if you’re going with science-based vampires a la I Am legend. If they’re supernatural, there’s no reason moonlight wouldn’t affect them differently.

  • Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb

    They sparkle!

    (Or so I’m told.)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    There’s a Doctor Who novel with vampires where they mention that being out in starlight does sting mildly. And they could if they wanted fly to the moon, but had to time it properly so that they didn’t get hit by too much unfiltered sunlight.

    (In the end, the Doctor transports them all to a planet with two suns.)

  • fraser

    Which makes me think of the hemovores in Curse of Fenric. Coming from the last days of Earth, they’re utter nihilists and therefore repelled by the psychic aura generated by faith.

  • Matri

    At least they don’t sparkle

  • FearlessSon

    The joke around western Washington being that Twilight takes place in Forks because this area is the part of the country where the sun shines so little that the Cullens can effectively hide.

  • Anon

    I thought that was in-universe canon, not a joke.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    What’s the diff? ;-)

  • FearlessSon

    Wait, that was canon?

    Damnit Meyer, why do you have to ruin a perfectly good bit of regional self-deprecation by playing it serious?

  • sidhe

    I have a friend who’s a huge Twilight fan. I always thought it rather odd, as she has otherwise good taste. Then she told me she’s actually from Forks, WA, and that the novels are an accurate description of home, except with more vampires and fewer Native Americans.

  • Matri

    The implication of that is… unsettling.

  • Ross Thompson

    Too easy to weaponize that with modern technology when you can just make a special flashlight that kills vampire’s dead.

    One of the Blade movies had UV grenades. They weren’t just a bright light, though; there was an obvious explosion component.

  • Jurgan

    I see it as an exaggeration of humans’ own weakness to sun. If you stay in direct sunlight for a long time, you will get bad sunburns. I imagine a vampire would get near fatal sunburns within ten minutes or so. And since that means the culprit is ultra-violet light, it can be easily weaponized without being an insta-kill special move.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    Robin McKinley did a good job of recognizing this conundrum in the legend. In Sunshine, it is acknowledged that moonlight and starlight all are basically sunlight at a remove, but a vampires’ degree of tolerance toward it depends on how old and powerful and evil they are (which are all different axes of character development). So the vampires in her novel all burn up in the sun, but it’s only the really old and evil ones who can’t even go out on a starry night. Some of them can’t go out in the open air at all, because light from stars is always reaching the earth’s surface and they’re just that vulnerable to it now. That’s why they have minions – in their pursuit of power, they’ve actually given up a lot of their ability to interact with the world on a physical level.

  • The_L1985

    IIRC, while it’s not original, it’s still not too contradictory to the original text. In it, vampires are clearly described as evil, Satanic monsters, and the sun as “the light of God.” Since Dracula never went out during any bright sunny day that I recall*, and Lucy was likewise constrained, solar-combusting vampires isn’t much of a stretch.

    (Also, speaking of vampires burning up, I highly recommend the Jonathan Coulton song “Blue Sunny Day.”)

    * London is a place of perpetual rain and fog, right?

  • Dave Pooser

    Such a great JoCo song.

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    There’s a pony for that, too.

    There have actually been a few My Little Pony/vampire crossovers on the Web:

    http://www.fimfiction.net/story/72971/nosflutteratu

    http://www.fimfiction.net/story/1451/2/the-monster-mash/rarity-blood-and-water

  • Ross Thompson

    There was a book about monsters I read as a kid, probably written some time in the 70’s. I remember them saying that their weakness was specifically to the light of the rising sun, not to sunlight in general.

    I’m no expert on monsterology, but I think that used to be the standard, and the “any sunlight” thing dates back to Anne Rice and Vampire: The Masquerade.

  • http://mordicaifeed.tumblr.com/ Mordicai

    Well, the solution to the “Dracula baggage” is to take a wide view; read some comparative mythology on vampires, read more vampire books, see more vampire movies– in essence, to dilute your biases by educating yourself to a wider view.

    (I will refrain from pointing out that no matter how much you like Dracula, it doesn’t mean vampires exist, not even if there is historical evidence for Vlad Tepes…)

  • longstreet63

    Joining the chorus. Stoker’s Dracula was the first adult book I ever read for pleasure–a chapter a night. It made me a reader. I still have that school book club copy on my shelf. That was nearly 40 years ago.
    This has the added benefit of making me a vampire pedant on demand. Useful on the internets.

  • SirThinkALot

    I have to disagree with you a bit, it may not completely impossible to divorce our cultural biases from how we read Dracula, its still possible to gain some appreciation of how audiences would have received it, it just requires a lot of work to understand the context it was written in.

    After all, its not as if Stoker wrote Dracula in a vacuum: There were vampire legends from well before he was born(and those legends in turn were probably inspired by old Greek and Middle Eastern myths). The title character was loosely based on the real life figure Vlad the Impaler(who was called Dracula well before Stoker wrote his book). Not to mention the cultural assumptions of Victorian Romania and England, in which both Stoker wrote and the story is set.

    Once we take the effort to understand these sorts of things(and perhaps I’m missing) that formed the context Stoker wrote in, we can form a decent(if admittedly imperfect) understanding of how the story would have been understood. And this, in turn could give us some ideas of how to apply the tropes and ideas Stoker formed to more modern versions of his tale.

  • LMM22

    Once we take the effort to understand these sorts of things(and perhaps I’m missing) that formed the context Stoker wrote in, we can form a decent(if admittedly imperfect) understanding of how the story would have been understood.

    We can understand how they experienced it, but we can never experience that experience.

    Years ago in college, a group of friends and I watched (IIRC) “Shakespeare in Love.” There’s a bit at the end that shows the first performance of “Romeo and Juliet.” One of the audience members reacts to the final scene — and my friend gasped. “They didn’t know how it ended.”

    Casablanca, to me, didn’t have a surprise ending. I had known what would happen when I sat down to watch the film. That didn’t make the doomed romance have any less of a punch, I think — but my experience of the movie was profoundly different from that experienced by someone who went to see it as it was originally in theaters.

  • http://kadhsempire.yuku.com/ Matt

    You don’t really have to do all that to get Dracula. Just read it and be amazed that what you are reading is where the whole phenomenon began. All those cliches and such weren’t cliches and such. They were revolutionary.

    Hmm, seem to have been talking about the bible too.

  • de_la_Nae

    I dunno, you can just read a translation of the Protestant Christian Bible’s various books and letters, but it sure seems a little sillier without doing the homework to get at least a bit of a grasp on their culture. Certainly makes John of Patmos’s contributions make more sense.”To the churches all up in Turkey…”

    Though I will allow it’s probably a little easier for a modern U.S.American reader to shift into the cultural mindset for Dracula, since it’s a similar language and not nearly as long ago.

  • Carstonio

    My first exposure to Sherlock Holmes was in an annotated edition of “A Study in Scarlet” that explained some of the references. From reading the canon a few times, I’ve picked up on the era’s attitudes toward the sexes, along with Doyle’s romanticism.

    Fred’s analogy doesn’t seem to be accurate. Anyone is free to interpret works of fiction any way they wish. No matter what the author’s original intentions, the stories resonate in different ways with different readers. But with scripture from any religion, the underlying premise is that one or more gods want humans to act a certain way, or believe they know what’s best for humans. As a fan of the creations of both Doyle and Siegel & Schuster, I might like or dislike new interpretations of the characters, but I wouldn’t label faulty interpretations as sinful. Artistic expression is a statement of a personal vision, and even works that seem crassly commercial reflect this to some degree. I doubt that religion has an equivalent concept.

  • P J Evans

    Yeah, that’s why fans never refer to themselves as ‘true believers’. [g]

  • Carstonio

    Heh. I mean that being part of an audience for artistic expression isn’t about treating the artist as a moral authority, or discerning the will of the artist for the audience.

  • Figs

    Consider it in the context of the types of “Biblical literalists” who subscribe to LB and don’t realize that they’re realy “Scofield Annotated Biblical literalists”.

  • Carstonio

    But both the Scofieldists and the Christians who disagree with them agree that the Bible is authoritative, and not necessarily in the knowledge sense. That would be like readers of “Dracula” and its descendants believing that humans have an obligation or responsibility to hunt down and destroy vampires, with the disagreements among the factions being limited to tactics.

  • GDwarf

    I remember how excited and intrigued I was when I first realized that all art was influenced by everything that came before it, to at least some extent, and that every reader was likewise influenced, so that one could not fully understand a work without knowing everything the author knew and nothing more. I was 13, or something like, so this seemed like an amazing revelation, but it’s still mildly fascinating to think about. It certainly highlights the failings of the written word: As something designed to precisely convey thoughts across distances and times it does an admirable job, but it’s not perfect, and that needs to be recognized. It also makes me wonder what “language 2.0” will be.

  • stardreamer42

    And then there’s my generation, for whom the strongest influence on our personal definition of “vampire” tended to be Barnabas Collins.

  • ohiolibrarian

    Or Angelique!

  • Michael Pullmann

    I’m hardly the first person to notice this, but what the hey:
    “This is my blood, shed for you. Drink, and you shall have eternal life.”

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    And don’t forget the other component of a guaranteed best-seller:

    “ZOMBIE BEST MONSTER. JESUS SAY ‘EAT FLESH’. ZOMBIE FOLLOW JESUS.”

  • schismtracer

    It’s words and symbols and characters can never mean anything wholly separate from what they mean to that community.

    And this is why I will never consider myself part of a fanbase. They inevitably devolve into a bunch of self-declared authorities who think their expectations and interpretations are canon. Then, when reality fails to measure up or slightly differs in some way, they fly into a rage of frustrated entitlement issues. Then comes the childish trolling, death threats, and ridiculous petitions to the Better Business Bureau.

  • auroramere

    Yes and no. In media fandom, at least, all these reactions are happening all the time, along with some great writing, both fiction and criticism, and of course the other 90% of the writing. That’s why fiction recommendations from people who share your tastes are prized. But it’s not a devolution from some superior state of fandom; it’s a whole bunch of people reacting in different ways. Some of those ways are going to be ridiculous or childish (some fans are children).

    And how I wish death threats were a concept unique to fanbases, or to any particular domain.

  • Risser

    Oh, no, Fred, it is such a good book. And still spooky, even though you know exactly (sort of) what is going to happen. It’s really well-written and holds up, and I think the slight archaicness brings a little more spookiness to it.

    I convinced my book club to read it for our October meeting a few years ago, and most people were hesitant. But everyone agreed after reading it, that it was really good.

    You should read it.
    Seriously.
    Peter

  • Anthony Rosa

    Well played, Fred. Well played.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    I feel like this comment thread is incomplete without at least a cursory mention of Team Human by Justine Larbalestier and Sarah Rees Brennan.

    The slogan underneath the title on the cover is “Friends don’t let friends date vampires.”

    It begins with the idea, “Imagine Twilight from the human best friend’s point of view.” It continues to riff off of every vampire trope since ever. But it doesn’t stop there – it winds up challenging a lot of notions about agency, free will, what it means to ‘not waste your life’, what it means to be a stranger among your own kind, the unlikely places love can blossom and the unlikely and sometimes unfortunate places it can take you… It also made me cry at the end, which I didn’t expect from a book I came to expecting (and getting) non-stop laugh-out-loud funny, considering I first heard about at at the Sirens conference in 2011 where the authors of this yet-to-be-released book were giving a hilarious co-presentation on it (it was nominally a presentation about what it’s like to co-write a book).

    OK, that wasn’t cursory at all. But it’s a good book, so maybe I get verbose talking about it. Go! Read!

  • Nick Gotts

    I must admit I haven’t read Dracula, but I have an interesting essay by the critic John Sutherland (in Is Heathcliff a Murderer? Puzzles in 19th-Century Fiction), who argues that the Count comes to England:

    in order that he may make himself a thoroughly modern vampire for the imminent twentieth century

    – by learning about society, law, politics, science and technology in the world’s most advanced country. Stoker’s Transylvania is “certainly Gothic and ahistorical” but his England is realistic and up-to-date. Because late 19th century England looks far from modern to today’s readers, they are likely to miss this. Sutherland also links the novel to the “invasion fantasies” which were popular in England at the time; H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds is another example, but more typically, the invaders were beastly but mundane foreigners – usually French or German, according to taste. P.G. Wodehouse wrote a parody, The Swoop, in which multiple simultaneous invasions occur:

    England was not merely beneath the heel of the invader. It was beneath the heels of nine invaders. There was barely standing-room.

  • Korou

    OK, that was clever. Well done.

  • fencerman

    Not to mention that Dracula itself was written as a response to other books and artistic ideas that are never even referred to in the book – they existed in that whirlpool of ideas, culture and history that were relevant in the time that the original book came out of. Romanticism, gothic horror, the counter movement to the enlightenment – all of it creating an ongoing conversation with the past.

    Why on earth would that book go on at such lengths about seemingly bizarre topics like forbidding cooking a calf in it’s mother’s milk? Er… I mean talking about the various races and divisions of people in Transylvania, rather, and the history of the Ottoman rule in Eastern Europe. Yes, that’s it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X