Hello again, it's Jake here. I hope you enjoyed the Lord of The Rings gushing because I wanted to do another one. This time however I wanted to do something from genre that I tend to overlook.
This is probably why I am very picky with what Horror I consume. In terms of films there are Western Horror films I adore, but I always turn back to Japanese and Korean Horror if I want to be hiding from the screen in apprehension. In book form I'm equally picky, sure I read stuff that's classified as horror, yet when I want a real kick I go Gothic
I remember reading Dracula by Bram Stoker at around 16. I can't recall why I started reading it, I think being a wannabe hipstery teen it may have had something to do with 'reading the classics'.
That's besides the point, growing up I never really read Horror.
I was aware of the mega successful Goosebumps series by R.L. Stine, and vaguely remember attempting to read some books from the Point Horror series then giving in disappointment. I was confident Dracula was going to have a tough time scaring me.
I was wrong. So wrong.
Reading it gave me this ominous feeling. An impending sense of dread. I would have to take a second glance at innocent shadows every so often. It was the first horror I fell in love with. The first to make me feel scared, whether in my safe space or not.
I was aware of the mega successful Goosebumps series by R.L. Stine, and vaguely remember attempting to read some books from the Point Horror series then giving in disappointment. I was confident Dracula was going to have a tough time scaring me.
I was wrong. So wrong.
Reading it gave me this ominous feeling. An impending sense of dread. I would have to take a second glance at innocent shadows every so often. It was the first horror I fell in love with. The first to make me feel scared, whether in my safe space or not.
Where to start? Let's look firstly at the characters, because they are the foundation of why this is such a good book. I'm not traditionally a fan of first person stories, and the fact we have five narrators could be overwhelming, but it's not. Instead we are privy to their private thoughts. For some we see their most intimate hopes, others we see their deepest fears.
 |
It's a key component in the relationship we the reader build with each character that keeps us invested to the end of the story. We witness the horror first hand which makes us recoil with the characters, rather than for what is happening to the characters.
Having this level of insight makes the characters more sympathetic because once you understand their motivations you can put yourself in their shoes.
Having this level of insight makes the characters more sympathetic because once you understand their motivations you can put yourself in their shoes.
This is however comes into it's own when we look at the effect this has on the narrative.
We start off by getting taken through three apparently unconnected stories across four of our narrators, which Stoker uses to weave threads that will have much greater significance as time moves on.
He also expertly uses sources from outside our core cast of characters to give us glimpses (and it really is glimpses) of what's going on in the wider world that further impacts the story.
Seemingly unrelated ships logs and newspaper give us hints to the scope of what is going on, enough to build a bit of a picture, but not enough that you can be wholly certain, of what our ensemble are facing.
We start off by getting taken through three apparently unconnected stories across four of our narrators, which Stoker uses to weave threads that will have much greater significance as time moves on.
He also expertly uses sources from outside our core cast of characters to give us glimpses (and it really is glimpses) of what's going on in the wider world that further impacts the story.
Seemingly unrelated ships logs and newspaper give us hints to the scope of what is going on, enough to build a bit of a picture, but not enough that you can be wholly certain, of what our ensemble are facing.
 |
Stoker, like any true master of Horror, gives you a sense of impending dread for the characters, but manages to mask the true horror until the last minute.
It also makes it better with a second reading as you finally start to see the intricacy of the narrative Stoker has weaved.
It also makes it better with a second reading as you finally start to see the intricacy of the narrative Stoker has weaved.
 |
For me however, it's the ultimate kind of Horror that Dracula is, as to why you should read it. Generally the scariest of horrors fall into one of two categories, either psychological or 'monster'.
Psychological relies on being able to make the reader doubt what's being presented to them, and question themselves constantly. It makes perfect sense why this works, after all what's more terrifying than doubting yourself?
When you lose that ability to trust your own senses then the concept of what is and isn't real is putty in the writers hands. Psychological horror is subtle, a whisper in the night when no one is there.
Psychological relies on being able to make the reader doubt what's being presented to them, and question themselves constantly. It makes perfect sense why this works, after all what's more terrifying than doubting yourself?
When you lose that ability to trust your own senses then the concept of what is and isn't real is putty in the writers hands. Psychological horror is subtle, a whisper in the night when no one is there.
Monster horror is conversely very obvious. This is what you should be scared of and why. However, if done well it is designed to leave you in no doubt as to why you should be scared.
It arguably pulls on a more instinctive sense of terror, invoking images of predator and pray. If Psychological Horror is a whisper then then Monster Horror is a primal scream.
Stoker uses both aspects to craft one of horrors most complete masterpieces in Dracula. He both simultaneously presents the titular character as an apex predator that should be feared by one and all. From his description of Dracula, to the atmosphere he creates he wants to leave you in no doubt of who you should be scared of.
It arguably pulls on a more instinctive sense of terror, invoking images of predator and pray. If Psychological Horror is a whisper then then Monster Horror is a primal scream.
Stoker uses both aspects to craft one of horrors most complete masterpieces in Dracula. He both simultaneously presents the titular character as an apex predator that should be feared by one and all. From his description of Dracula, to the atmosphere he creates he wants to leave you in no doubt of who you should be scared of.
 |
| http://johnjohnson.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do |
Yet psychologically he makes Dracula all the more terrifying by the powers and characteristics Stoker attributes to him. He can generate mists, change shape, bears no reflection. How can you ever be sure he's not really there? Conversely is he really there, or is your mind playing tricks on you?
 |
Finally Dracula is (spoiler alert) the most noticeable character absent from the narrators. Where as with Van Helsing, Seward, Westenra and the Harker's we see everything, so as such understand why they do what they do we are never afforded that luxury with Dracula. At best we can only guess based on observations of other characters.
Dracula is the ultimate unknowable.
Dracula is the ultimate unknowable.
It's a chilling thought, you know what you should be afraid of, but can never be sure if it's truly there, and you will never truly understand why. That's horror in it's purest form. Primal fear.
Comments