Draculas Homep

AUTHOR'S NOTE

Since 1970 we have witnessed a plethora of books, articles and documentaries about Dracula and its author, Bram Stoker. But this has unfortunately come at a cost: the dissemination of an unsettling amount of unreliable information. The time has come for scholars and researchers, as well as aficionados, to step back and take stock. How accurate is the material that is being foisted upon us? How much of what is offered as fact is speculation, error, or, even worse, deliberate contrivance? How can we possibly separate the sense from the nonsense?

The problem is pervasive. The most critical manifestations are to be found in a number of books widely accepted as authoritative texts. Their conjectures and inaccuracies are accepted by subsequent researchers as facts, and the errors are rapidly compounded. Before we know it, we become mired in a bog of misconceptions, contradictory findings, and blurred distinctions. Examples can be found everywhere: in biographies of Stoker, in scholarly as well as popular studies of Dracula, in encyclopedia entries, and in television documentaries.

The "nonsense" that this book will challenge takes many forms. There are the outright errors (for example, that Stoker began writing Dracula in 1895); unsubstantiated propositions (for example, that Stoker knew about Elizabeth Bathory); and widespread distortions of earlier errors and propositions (for example, that Stoker's inspiration for Dracula was that infamous fifteenth-century vampire, Vlad the Impaler). We find overstatements made in the flush of excitement over a new proposition; fabricated conversations of which there are no records; incorrect statements about what is or is not in the novel; misconceptions fed by countless movies that bear little resemblance to the text; and wild speculations, prompted by the determination to force Stoker's novel to fit a pet interpretative theory. So widely accepted are such misconceptions that the task of dislodging them will be far from easy.

Who are the perpetrators? They range from casual writers whose main objective appears to be to capitalize on a popular topic to serious scholars. While all must be held accountable, I tend to focus more rigorously on those writers (including a number of academics) whose books and articles have had a major impact on many readers. At times we are dealing with specialists in other fields who are just "passing through." Rather than go through the leg-work, they tend to rely on what has already been published much of which, as we shall see, is unreliable. Thus the errors get perpetuated and, even worse, are used for the foundation of new findings. Others are beating a particular theoretical drum, and are determined to force Dracula into a pre-determined mold, whether it fits or not. Yet others have cobbled together books in order to jump on a popular bandwagon (as occurred during the Dracula centennial year - 1997).

Misconceptions and inaccuracies are also promulgated through numerous television and video documentaries. While I appreciate that interviews for the media are often edited (I have had this happen myself), I feel justified in quoting from such material. Many viewers are convinced that anything stated on A&E, the BBC or the History Channel must be accurate. Alas, this is not the case! And then there is the Internet. I will make no attempt to venture into that quicksand.

This book purports where possible to set the record straight. To achieve that objective, I am guided by three fundamental principles.

The first is that Dracula is a novel worthy of scholarly scrutiny, employing the same research methods applied to more canonized works of literature. The disturbing proliferation of incorrect information is due in part to the dismissive attitude of many towards what they consider a second-rate author and novel. Consequently, an "anything goes" attitude permeates much of the published material. Coupled with that is the innate potential in the subject matter for sensationalism. Several books and television documentaries are clearly aimed more at attracting readers and viewers than at providing reliable information. And to date, nobody has been willing to take on the task of scrutinizing the volumes of material in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.

My second premise is that facts do exist, in spite of the continuous efforts by some to blur them or to dispense with them altogether. For starters, there was an author named Bram Stoker and there is a novel entitled Dracula. There are things that happened; there are things that might have happened; there are things that did not happen. Some statements are verifiably correct, some are speculative, some are imaginative reconstructions, and some are wrong. Fact and speculation are not synonymous; fact and fiction are not interchangeable.

Thirdly, I decided from the outset that all material would be subject to scrutiny. At the risk of offending sensibilities and even straining the bonds of friendship, I am challenging the work of many prominent writers and scholars, for many of whom I have the deepest respect. I have made no exceptions, not even my publisher nor myself. To accomplish this, I have had to force myself to stand back, to extricate myself from any favorite theory or pet peeve. I have donned the garb of the detective, whose primary task is to winnow out the truth, no matter where the search might lead. Each entry begins with a faulty or questionable statement from a published account. Where possible, I trace the source(s) of the error and endeavor to account for its origins, or at least suggest where the perpetrator may have found the inaccurate information. In some cases, the trail is a long and winding one. I attempt to indicate whether the error resulted from reliance on a flawed source, whether it arose from a misreading of primary material, or whether it appears to be pure invention. The exploration of each piece of "nonsense" is followed by an attempt to provide the corrective. Here I rely, where possible, on undisputed evidence such as Bram Stoker's own Working Notes for Dracula, other primary documents, and the novel itself.

This book is not a work of literary criticism. As a rule, I will not challenge interpretations of Dracula. If, however, such interpretations are based on distortions or inaccuracies, then I consider them fair game. Nor do I object to speculation (a healthy exercise for any scholar or researcher), as long as it is labeled as such. But speculation has a way of shapeshifting into fact, once it is repeated often enough. Movies based on Dracula (which are not bound to be "true" to the text) are mentioned only insofar as they may be responsible for perpetuating common misconceptions.

I should like to answer three questions that I anticipate some readers might have. First of all, does any of this matter? Is not Dracula, in the final analysis, just a book to be read and enjoyed? Far be it from me to take away the pleasure that anyone finds in my favorite novel. But as a scholar, I cannot stand by and allow the continuation of so many outrageous statements without responding with a challenge.

The second question is: How do I know that I am right? In most cases, the evidence that I provide is incontestable. Where doubts remain, I am prepared to admit to them. If I have overlooked any crucial piece of evidence, I ask that it be brought to my attention. Should new information come to light, I shall be happy to embrace it and, of necessary, modify my findings. But until that happens, I stand by what I present in this book.

Finally, who am I to take on this monumental (and possibly thankless) task? True, I am somewhat of a "johnny-come-lately" in Dracula studies, having made my debut as a scholar in the early 1990s. But this provides me with a distinct advantage: I have been unencumbered by earlier misconceptions, and less affected by the "if you hear or read something often enough you begin to accept it" syndrome. I assure each of my readers that I have no axe to grind, no scores to settle. My one and only concern is to rescue Bram Stoker and his classic novel from the quagmire of popular misconception.

Elizabeth Miller

Memorial University of Newfoundland

March 2000

Back Button

COPYRIGHT©2005 Dr. Elizabeth Miller