Draculas Homep

Review

by

Cathy Krusberg

[A version of this review will appear in The Vampire's Crypt 22 (Fall 2000). The Vampire's

Crypt web site is: http://members.aol.com/MLCVamp/vampcrpt.htm]

"My one and only concern is to rescue Bram Stoker and his classic novel from the quagmire of popular misconception." Thus the author, a persistent and outspoken advocate of truth and justice in Dracula studies, explains her motivation for producing this much-needed work of debunkery. Dracula: Sense and Nonsense ferrets out misstatements, misrepresentations, dubious claims, and out-and-out errors concerning what still remains the quintessential -- if much misunderstood -- vampire novel. Popular and scholarly works, recognized Dracula scholars, specialists in other fields who are "just passing through," and even television broadcasts are subjected to scrutiny. In dealing with the "nonsense" that has accreted around these popular figures -- the fictional Dracula and the historical Bram Stoker -- Miller relies where possible on undisputed evidence, particularly Stoker's working notes and the novel itself. Where room for doubt remains, Miller says so -- but also indicates just how much, why, and how the statements that she disputes have gone beyond the bounds of reasonable speculation.

What treasured myths are exploded, what poppycock uncocked? Some entries treat straightforward solecisms: "[Bathory's] legend certainly played a major role in the creation of the character of Count Dracula"; "Stoker was a professor of English"; "Bram Stoker's novel is considered by many of the inhabitants of Turkey to be a defamation of their national hero." Others treat more complex topics, sometimes at considerable length. Miller repeatedly goes beyond "No, it doesn't" to detail available evidence and compare it with published statements. Topics that receive particularly noteworthy point-by-point consideration include the multitudinous connections that writers have made between the historical Vlad Tepes and the fictional Count Dracula; Arminius Vambery as an important source of information for Stoker; claims that British Museum documents were Stoker's sources of information on Dracula; and possible real-life "models" for the count's castle.

Vampire bats are common in the Carpathians? Dracula must remain in his grave during the daytime? Stoker gave an accurate description of Bran Castle? "Absurd!" "Claptrap!" "Garbage!" Miller declares. "Outspoken" is a mild word for some reactions to egregious errors -- a facet of style that at times makes Dracula: Sense and Nonsense quite entertaining. The suggestion that Csejthe castle inspired Castle Dracula yields: "O tempora! O mores!" Dracula dies by a stake through the heart? "Rubbish! Encyclopedia Americana gets an 'F.'" The claim that Dracula is physically attractive is met with "Oh dear! Dracula is cadaverous; has a receding hairline, bad breath, cruel mouth, protruding teeth and red eyes; when well fed, he looks like a filthy leech. Hardly a '10' on anyone's scale." But even the most outraged exclamations are followed by matter-of-fact exposition of "just the facts, ma'am." Even Miller's work is not exempt from correction: commenting on her own statement that one document alleged that the historical Vlad "used to dip bread into the blood of victims and eat the bread," Miller responds with a candid "Shame on me! Mea culpa!" and traces the source of this error.

What do we know about Dracula? As Miller demonstrates, some of what we "know" is speculation or outright error. Any researcher in the field of Dracula studies would do well to consult Miller's book in addition to any other secondary sources. (Miller helpfully includes a brief critical bibliography of relevant books, such as annotated editions of Dracula, biographies of Stoker, and related references.) Dracula: Sense and Nonsense sets the record straight again and again, with its well-argued presentations of evidence (or its absence) from the best sources available.

Back Button

COPYRIGHT©2005 Dr. Elizabeth Miller