I am now reading the classics, and recently I concluded Dracula. Is Dracula really a classic? Yes, in the horror genre it is. But there is a good reason why Bram Stoker's other books never really took off. He was not a great writer, if Dracula was any indication. Mina is the most fully drawn character, which is unfortunate as she is also the character I most disliked. Her fragility, or even worse, presumed fragility, is hard to take, and the men who fret over it more than anything else. Van Helsing gets off a couple good lines, but his unfounded confidence is insufferable. Van Helsing starts out knowing nothing about vampires, picks up some rumors and innuendo, and becomes the expert vampire killer. He even says that Dracula has the mind of a child. How he could possibly know this, I don't know. His reasoning makes no sense.
Count Dracula himself is given very little dialogue, and is even made unintentionally sympathetic by his shallow pursuers. At least he is interesting, which is more than you can say for the rest of the characters. That is, except for Renfield, whose allegiance is to the dark side.--go dark side!
Stoker is at his best with imaginative descriptions of various horrific events. His words conjure up stunning visuals. It is no wonder that the book has translated well into the realm of cinema. One other commendable aspect is the use of primary sources. Sources like journal entries and newspaper articles lend to the book's authenticity, when the subject would otherwise seem entirely unauthentic.
After reading the book, I now have newfound respect for Bram Stoker's Dracula. Coppola took the strengths of the book and marvelously rendered the visuals that are so important to the book. I have always maintained that Keanu Reeves' Jonathan Harker is meant to be dull, and the book's portrayal of the character is not far off. It takes a vampire to infuse him with some character, and even vampires have a tough time making Keanu Reeves show some range of emotion.
Up next: Bleak House, all 900+ pages of it.
