Comments on: Dracula Postmortem, Part IV

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:01:23 +0000

I agree with Todeswalzer’s observations about the sameness of the narrative voices. I suppose one could argue that this is part of the loss of personal identity that comes when one becomes submerged in group causes (in this case, vampire hunting) but I doubt that Stoker was a sophisticated enough author to have done this deliberately.

What stands out for me is the denial of a narrative voice to Dracula himself. This, of course, serves to marginalize the vampire (and whatever you choose to have him represent). But hearing from the Count (unfiltered through any other narrator) would have been interesting! (In 1972, SF novelist Fred Saberhagen in The Dracula Tape rewrote Stoker’s novel with Dracula as the sole narrator.)

By: Todeswalzer

Todeswalzer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:35:29 +0000

the structure was a good idea (using the diaries and correspondence), although I don’t think it was used as effectively as it could have been. It started strong with Harker’s notes, but the impact of the form faded over the course of the book, and I don’t think it was the fault of the form.

The first four chapters really hooked me as well, but as the novel progressed it seemed like the characters were merging into a single personality, and except for some necessary markers (i.e. mentions of “finacee” or “wife” in Harker’s entries to refer to Mina), any of the diary entries by about midway through the book could really have been written under the name of any one of the characters. They didn’t have distinct styles, perspectives, or ways of expressing themselves.

I’m still hoping for a Ulysses cadre to form.

I’m totally behind you on this! I think the Infinite Summer format is perfect for a novel like Ulysses. It is a masterpiece that begs to be read, but, more than that, begs to be discussed.

By: Prolixian

Prolixian — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:28:35 +0000

I don’t know precisely what qualifies as relevance per the question for this section, but I can offer that I think the structure was a good idea (using the diaries and correspondence), although I don’t think it was used as effectively as it could have been. It started strong with Harker’s notes, but the impact of the form faded over the course of the book, and I don’t think it was the fault of the form. Whether faulty in its execution or not, I’m fairly certain that the book remains important in understanding the development of vampire lit.

As for relevance in my own life, I think of IJ about 1000 times as frequently as I think of Dracula. IJ just keeps coming back to me, but Dracula has come and gone. Now that I’m finished with Drac, I miss Hal and Pemulis and Mario and Gately all that much more (and all the publicity about Agassi’s bio has just made it worse.)

Thanks to all guides and commenters for stepping up for this one. I hope the next book inspires more active exchanges. I’m still hoping for a Ulysses cadre to form. Anyone?