The Timelessness of Dracula (First Published in 1897!)

[paulgoatallen]

Rochelle: Great signature quote by the way! After reading your post, I think that I'm going to have to watch the Frank Langella Dracula over again because when I first saw it – decades ago! – I hated it. I'm with you on Nosferatu and the Lugosi flicks but man, my memories of Langella as Dracula were not good... I'll have to watch it again now!
Paul

[Peppermill]

This link has an article of criticism on Dracula from the viewpoint of some of the larger issues facing the British empire. I did not read it all -- it appears to be lengthy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_n1_v37/ai_16946525

I do remember that when I read Dracula a year ago I encountered material that drew parallels not only with the Freudian sexual viewpoints of the early 1900's, but also that compared Dracula to Britain in Ireland. A third thread of criticism dealt with threats to the British empire itself -- immigration, racial, control of capital. So far I haven't been able to retrieve good sources to share here on those themes.

[Peppermill]

The articles available from this site all require a fee, but the single sentence descriptors alone suggest the range of approaches that have been taken.

http://www.bookrags.com/criticisms/Dracula

[paulgoatallen]

Rochelle:
Peppermill is absolutely right. The edition that we happen to be featuring this month (part of B&N's Classics series) is only one of hundreds of editions still in print today. I think your remark about "just in print" would offend hundreds if not thousands of writers who have put their hearts and souls into books they've writen only to have them go out-of-print within a few years. The fact that any novel is still in print after more than a century is remarkable in and of itself. And regarding your remark about the book being "not so popular" – the Dover publication of Dracula is currently at #2907 on the B&N website – ahead of numerous editions of Lord of the Rings and several versions of the Bible, just to name a few. That's saying something for a book that was seen as just another cheesy thriller back in 1897...

Paul

Message Edited by paulgoatallen on 10-23-2007 03:10 PM

[Peppermill]

Paul-- Foxycat has already been kind enough to acknowledge the hastiness of her calculations. Time to let her off the hook.

---

foxycat wrote:
Actually, I spoke too soon. .... You're right; you would have to really find how many were being sold in ALL versions per year.I don't think those stats could be found easily. Fugeddaboutit.

---

[chad]

The character is both at once a personification of modernity and the past. Dracula seems to pierce or dispel the contemporary by being from the past, and, in this way, much resembles modern invention. This quality may give Dracula his timelessness.

Chad

[paulgoatallen]

Peppermill and Foxycat:
No disrespect intended at all, I apologize if anyone took any of my comments the wrong way – although as a writer with numerous "out-of-print" titles, that "just in print" remark is still a little uncomfortable whenever I read it. I was just trying to get across the point that Dracula is still very much a relevant book, all you have to do is look at the number of various editions still in print – not to mention all of the works of genre fiction that Dracula has in some way inspired. It really is mind-boggling. I've been searching around trying to find a rough estimate as to how many copies of Dracula (all editions, all languages) have been sold worldwide but I'm finding it very difficult... I'll let you know if I find anything.
Paul

[chad]

"During that time, hundreds of thousands of novels have been published and the bulk of them are now long out of print. Also, in that span of 110 years, human society has evolved by leaps and bounds – Stoker would be completely lost in the 21st century. It's a completely different world."

I think this is an interesting comment given Stoker's theme of a past that haunts us. I'm not sure he would be completely lost in the 21st century. Human society has evolved by leaps and bounds, "more modernized", but the past seems to have a countereffect- people don't change. Technological innovation is canceled by a world history. Indeed, the world checks itself on nuclear arms. So, he would discover some changes to the world, but he would also still find his own character of Dracula lurking around every corner....

Chad

[Peppermill]

...people don't change.

Chad -- is that statement true?

It seems to me that along some parameters it is, but there are others where I am not so certain.

---

chad wrote:
"During that time, hundreds of thousands of novels have been published and the bulk of them are now long out of print. Also, in that span of 110 years, human society has evolved by leaps and bounds – Stoker would be completely lost in the 21st century. It's a completely different world."

I think this is an interesting comment given Stoker's theme of a past that haunts us. I'm not sure he would be completely lost in the 21st century. Human society has evolved by leaps and bounds, "more modernized", but the past seems to have a countereffect- people don't change. Technological innovation is canceled by a world history. Indeed, the world checks itself on nuclear arms. So, he would discover some changes to the world, but he would also still find his own character of Dracula lurking around every corner....

Chad

---

[Peppermill]

Sorry, Paul. Afraid you may have gotten caught in the middle. Foxycat and I had been throwing the conversation on a couple of boards back and forth between us for a few days -- I think in good fun, but my last throw had been perhaps a hard ball, so probably I was feeling a little sheepish and then I read your post!

Believe me, a lot of us would like to be able to say we had "out-of-print" titles! That would imply that we had once enjoyed having had something "in-print"!

B&N's marketing department may know the research houses that follow, compile, estimate or guesstimate statistics on publications. At least, there were such companies in the industry I once tracked. Not that you could always believe them even if they had tracked the specifics one was interested in following.

---

paulgoatallen wrote:
Peppermill and Foxycat:
No disrespect intended at all, I apologize if anyone took any of my comments the wrong way – although as a writer with numerous "out-of-print" titles, that "just in print" remark is still a little uncomfortable whenever I read it. I was just trying to get across the point that Dracula is still very much a relevant book, all you have to do is look at the number of various editions still in print – not to mention all of the works of genre fiction that Dracula has in some way inspired. It really is mind-boggling. I've been searching around trying to find a rough estimate as to how many copies of Dracula (all editions, all languages) have been sold worldwide but I'm finding it very difficult... I'll let you know if I find anything.
Paul

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 10-25-2007 05:26 PM

[paulgoatallen]

Thanks for the quick reply, Peppermill – I'd hate to think that I antagonized anyone one these boards...

And Chad, my comment about Stoker being lost in the 21st century was completely about technological innovations (the Internet, ipods, etc.) but I do agree that no matter what the era – whether it's in the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, or the 21st century – there are certain, more visceral aspects of humanity that will always be lurking: lust, fear, greed, jealousy, etc. so in that respect, yes, Stoker would definitely know that we are humans and not, for example, descendants of sentient apes from a parallel universe...

[chad]

Peppermill- Are you a waiter? SNL comes to mind as the waiter asks "Fresha pepper? Freshe pepper?" all over the place. But I think there is at least, and I have encountered it, a "people don't change" sentiment. You might believe this is true, but I'm feeling that Stoker probably was fed up with institutions, languages, histories, religions, customs, superstitions that kept people "rooted" in the past. "Dracula" conveys this sentiment to me- each of the characters seems to have difficulties with any one or all of the above.

Paul- I'm thinking that human nature was something fictional to Stoker- something that people made up. Human nature is rooted in Nature in "Dracula", or in other words, human nature is Nature. Nature assumes human qualities and vice versa...


Chad

Message Edited by chad on 10-26-2007 02:10 PM

[PatienceP]

But it is those histories, religions, customs, and superstitions that allow our heroes to defeat Dracula!
Without the histories and superstitions, our heroes are unable to do much about Dracula and his schemes. Jonathan might not have survived his tenure in Dracula's castle if he hadn't been given a crucifix; and until Dr. Van Helsing was called in with his histories and superstitions, none of Lucy, Mina, and Dr. Seward had any idea what was going on with Lucy!
Without the superstitions, our heroes would have no idea how to fight a vampire. Van Helsing said the superstitions were the only info he had, the only starting point.
Without religion--specifically, Roman Catholicism--our heroes would lack critical tools. Crucifixes are needed to keep Dracula back. (I think he's resistant to ordinary crosses, though, or he wouldn't be able to use the cemetery or the chapels on his properties.) And transubstantiated communion wafers were so necessary to stop Dracula that Dr. Van Helsing got an Indulgence to use them for that purpose.

[chad]

Patience-

I agree and I have to read on, but all of these things that you mention depend upon belief. Dracula is about the metaphysical, the intangible or myths becoming the physical, the tangible or the facts. So, myth becomes fact, religion becomes your religion, history is your past, depending on your belief(s). Moreover, the characters seem almost to be part of an "unreal" or a scene or a backdrop found in a movie- I believe the recent "Dracula" movie created this effect well. But rarely are characters "in sync" with their world and seldom do the two worlds come together. If they do, it's only for a moment. Characters seem to vacillate between two different worlds: awake and asleep, night and day, etc etc. When would be reality? When do we live in the contemporary or what is contemporary?

I think these are some of the things that Bram does well, in addition to still being a somewhat disturbing horror novel. I tend to think that the authors that write horror from this era tend to put some heart in it. I like Shelley's Frankenstein for the same reason.


Chad

Message Edited by chad on 10-28-2007 03:19 PM

[paulgoatallen]

Chad and Patience:
As I'm reading your most recent posts, I can't help but think of what's going on in the world today – about human nature being visceral and the force of religion, history, customs, culture on some people's perspectives and beliefs. These beliefs may have helped Van Helsing in his journey but it's interesting how they do so much harm as well...

I see prejudice and closemindedness as a subtle theme throughout Dracula – does anyone see this?
Paul

[chad]

I do see both characteristics or forces creeping into the story, but I see them as forces emnating from a distant past or a vision of the future impacting the character's lives in the present. Van Helsing seems to know how to use the past to move forward and timing is everything- he knows when to act, which might make him more of a hero. I have the Van Helsing DVD, which is one of my favorites. There should be a sequel.


Chad

Message Edited by chad on 10-29-2007 01:44 PM

[PatienceP]

Yes, prejudice and closed-mindedness is a theme--and at times it is discussed openly.
In the very beginning, Jonathan Harker doesn't take the superstitious Romanian peasants seriously when they try to warn him about Dracula. He accepts the crucifix reluctantly, as his branch of Anglicanism considered crucifixes idolatrous. He only accepts the danger he is in after he explores Dracula's castle (without permission, natch) and nearly gets bit... Once he realizes he's in a mess, he experiments to find ways out. He decides that if Dracula can climb the cliff-wall of the castle, so can he; this will save him and allow him to gather critical info--despite it being much harder for humans to climb walls than vampires.
Dr. Seward valued Dr. Van Helsing in part because he had creative thinking--an open mind. They end up debating whether a scientific open mind can seriously consider matters of faith as options--a critical discussion, since it requires faith to accept vampires as real right then. When Lucy's other admirers turn up and admit to being clueless about vampires, Dr. Van Helsing says that puts them ahead of Dr. Seward.
And then, Dr. Seward had closed his mind to the idea that Renfield can be rational, ever, after Renfield's first violent outburst; even when he figures that Renfield might be affected by Dracula, he didn't work that info backwards to shed light on Renfield's past behavior. (Likely because he never reviewed his phonographic diary: if he had reviewed it, he'd have known which cylinders were which when Mina asked him.) I don't think there's anything Renfield could've said, that night when he asked to be freed, that would've gotten Seward to free him... And not heeding that warning during that brief window of sanity nearly cost everyone records and Mina.

[chad]

So, having admitted these two themes, where do we think they come from?... And I thought I'd add: Stoker presents two different worlds. I think closed-mindedness or this state occurs in daylight. At night, however, by the light of the full moon, we dream, sleepwalk and our imaginations run wild....

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 10-30-2007 02:24 PM

[chad]

At one point in the story, Seward meets Lucy at Harrod's department store in London where the elite meet and gossip and probably find "contemporary" or "fashionable" clothes. This is a black hole in my mind- I'm not sure who sets the trends in clothing design or the current mode of fashion, but it's an example of a "created" sense of the contemporary. And styles seem to come from big cities like London, not Whitby, where there's a sense of timelessness...I don't know if anyone could shed some light on the fashion world.

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 10-30-2007 03:01 PM

[PatienceP]

Jonathan Harker seemed crazy for some time after he escaped Dracula's castle because he was unsure if what he lived through there was real or not. It was only when he was shown evidence that Dracula was more than just a dream that he acted mostly sane again (as opposed to being a nervous wreck).
And what to do when the dreams of the night affect the concrete reality of the day? Even those who don't believe in or know of vampires know that something is wrong with Lucy--they just don't know what--and even in the first dawn after her sleepwalk into Dracula's arms and teeth, you could see those little "pinpricks" in her neck. In the day.