finished dracula. thoughts under cut.
something i rlly rlly rlly liked abt dracula was how well the narrative was constructed. you can rlly tell he planned this shit out (< acc. apparently this is one of the Only novels stoker planned out) bc like. the perspective swap from jonathan saying goodbye 2 the world right in2 a smash cut of mina sending a letter 2 lucy. & lucys diary also all coming 2 a head & that stuff w seward & renfield. really good.
the tension that the structure of the narrative created was genuinely stunning. However . the elephant in the room. the characters (< something that apparently was an issue Throughout stokers works). mina lucy & jonathan were fairly well developed, mostly bc we have a look in2 their povs. sewards pov held a lot but imho he didnt have that... same charm? i was honestly a lot more interested in renfield than sewards moping. but his moping was admittedly kind of funny. & i Truly didnt care 4 morris. i know he gets hyped up as the cowboy in dracula but hes like.fine. hes only marginally interesting compared 2 the forces of personality that was mina + jonathan, renfield, & the amnt of intrigue around van helsing. i didnt quite grasp stokers addition of the whole everybody loves lucy thing (< three proposals in one day girl?) but that can easily be on me.
dracula is one of afaik the three major cornerstones of classic vampire literauture, along with le fanus carmilla & polidoris vampyre. i vastly prefer carmilla over dracula, but stokers narrative prowess in this novel is seriously worth reading 4, even if le fanu is more deft w laura & carmilla. have yet 2 read polidoris vampyre.
by the way, apparently theres a short story 2 go long w dracula called draculas guest. though it makes more sense once youre past the first handful of chapters in the main novel, it makes for a very effective prologue. give it a shot if youd like.
next up: dumas count of monte cristo.
