I've only just started reading Dracula so I haven't got loads to say but I thought I'd just do a little blog on my initial reactions. To be honest, I didn't think I was going to enjoy reading Dracula as much as I am doing because, in the past, I haven't got on well with the whole 'diary extracts/letters' novel format but actually, I think this structure lends itself well to the gothic genre as it centres the narrative on what's going on in one character's head and makes the story seem personal and, in a sense, closer to home. Also, this structure works well with the idea of blurred lines between what's real and what's not (that we spoke about in class) as it's almost as if you're reading someone's real diaries.
Another thing I like about the text is how descriptive it is...something I wasn't expecting from the 'diary entry style'. It's easy to understand why there have been so many film adaptations of Dracula - the fascinating settings are described so vividly in places (for example, the description on p16 '...an endless perspective of jagged rocks and pointed crags...') that the novel does have a very cinematic quality. Stoker, however, does balance out these detailed descriptions with more vague ones, which allows the text to hold onto a typically gothic sense of mystery (in that Harker can't fully understand or explain everything he sees 'there was a peasant man or woman kneeling' p17) while maintaining it's cinematic, visual qualities. Stoker has a way of using figurative language within the context of someone's diary without it being contrived or seeming more like a novel than a diary (if that makes sense?!)
I was also interested by the introduction to Stoker (at the start of the Penguin Popular Classics edition) with regard, specifically, to his interest in theatre as, as well as being very interested in theatre myself, Dracula, I think, is very theatrical (the whole concept of Dracula, the character, as well as the way in which the story is told) and, as I mentioned previously, cinematic. I haven't got to anything properly 'scary' yet but, I imagine this cinematic/theatrical style aids the creation of fear as the reader is specifically drawn in to engage with the novel on a visual level. Looking forward to reading on...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree about the cinematic quality of the descriptions at points - although every time I see an adaption on screen it never looks as dramatic as it does in my imagination; it seems too surreal to be scary when seen on film.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean - when we watched the film version in class, I enjoyed it but I've enjoyed reading the book far more as, where the film is based around the visual elements that are scary, the book focuses more on the psychological elements and when you're reading it in the first person, you can almost implant your own idea of what is 'scary' into the mix and it therefore, in my opinion, has a greater psychological impact on the reader. As I've read on, I've found that it's not the visuals in particular that are creepy but the unseen, unspoken thoughts that are difficult to convey in film.
ReplyDeleteRevision summary:
ReplyDelete-Epistolarly form lending itself well to the gothic genre
-Cinematic setting which is gothic (ambiguity)- elements of which can be seen as metaphorical (without seeming contrived) - foreshadowing
-Psychologically scary (gothic element)