I’m finding it easier to describe the cons of Dracula, but I wouldn’t say that they encompass the novel. The book isn’t bad; it’s mediocrely enjoyable. But the pros aren’t glaring. I guess I liked the format; it’s a blend of journals and newspaper articles. It did occasionally give away who survived after a dangerous event, though. The writing was very readable. The scenes with the empty, crewless ship were interesting; I’d never heard of that plotline associated with the story of Dracula before, so it grabbed my interest. …That’s about it. Let’s get into the cons:
The author didn’t build up suspense very well, but that’s okay, I don’t necessarily need suspense if the characters are compelling enough. They weren’t. Stoker set up Dracula as an interesting character in the first part of the novel, but then Dracula all but disappeared in the second half. I feel like if Stoker continued with Johnathan Harker’s journal entries, he could have built up his character, but Harker’s POV nearly disappeared in the second half too. So there weren’t really any compelling characters.
For someone who wrote such a slow-paced novel, the ending flew by and was entirely anticlimactic. The showdown wasn’t really a showdown; the good guys basically conceded they couldn’t defeat such a powerful enemy and cheated their way into winning.
I’m not usually distracted by gender roles in classics, because I believe that you have to keep the time period in mind, but I found it actually bothered me a tad in this one. It was rather blatant, and it was more annoying mainly because it led to such a stupid plotline. Yes, you dense men, Mina is only pale because of her feminine worry. There is absolutely no resemblance to Lucy’s symptoms, no contextual clues to pick up on here. Locking Mina up in the asylum and leaving “dear Mina with the man’s brain” alone night after night exactly as they did with Lucy was the most annoying and stupidest thing. The signs were there, fellas.
Lastly, there were some mistakes that could have been caught by a good editor. At one point, Mina writes (definitely paraphrased), “my husband. Ooh, chills, it’s the first time I’ve called him my husband.” Yep, nope, you called him your husband in your last letter. Little things like that. And the narrative itself could be repetitive at times.
I feel like you could write an academic essay on sexuality and homoeroticism in this novel if you’re interested enough. For example, why does Dracula only go after women to turn to the “dark side”? Is their blood sweeter; does he enjoy their company more? Why did he ultimately let Harker go? Explore Johnathan Harker’s damsel-in-distress role in the beginning and Dracula’s possessiveness over him. Maybe Dracula’s brides’ less subtle sexuality. There’s plenty there in the book to explore the sexual undertones and maybe connect it to authorial bias. Anyway, I’m not interested enough to go deeper.
