The Lover In the Darkness

Over these few days the BBC is broadcasting a new version of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. From the first few moments it was obvious that the vision of the count of Transylvania as understood by writers Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat was very different from that invented by Stoker. In approaching their series it's best not to compare with the classic, for one thing, in terms of quality, it will disappoint. The series has to be judged on its own merits and with that in mind the critic in the Telegraph has judged it camp and bonkers, not in a negative sense, but in that it is a comedic romp rather than a frightfest. The BBC's offering seems to be more in line with the English 'Carry On' movies rather than the brooding, dark and unsettling work of Bram Stoker. Indeed, given one of the writer's involvement in the rather gothic comedy 'League of Gentlemen', there seems to be a sense of that in the new drama.

Stoker's novel is quite disturbing; it is a book which sends shivers down your spine, and this is achieved by the author's use of the epistolary/memoir genre which gives a sense of immediacy - not a sense you want to have when reading ghost stories or horror novels; it makes the events all too real. This is why the book continues to frighten - the reader is pulled all too effectively into the action; it seems as if you are looking over the shoulder of the readers (and writers) of the letters and memoirs, all too aware that there may be another looking over your shoulder.

The first thing we must note is that the vampire of Transylvania is entirely Stoker's creation even though he draws on previous vampire stories. The eastern European tradition of vampires presents a very different view of the undead - far from being attractive, with some exceptions, they tend to be reanimated corpses, more like zombies, albeit with a greater degree of consciousness and more calculating. The figure most often associated with Stoker's protagonist is Vlad III Tepes, who was known as Dracula, or Dragulya; in reality Vlad has nothing in common with his revenant namesake. Vlad was a Voivode or Prince of Wallachia, not Transylvania, and he was a warrior engaged in fighting the Ottoman Empire as it sought to expand into Europe. It was the way that he dealt with the Ottomans that earned him the title 'Impaler' or Tepes in Romanian. He impaled them not only as a means of execution, but to frighten the Ottomans - as one of the Christian princes protecting Europe from Islamic invasion, this horrible method of execution was to serve a purpose. In Romania Vlad is regarded as a hero, and rightly so, he was a competent ruler who sought to protect his people and their faith. The sobriquet Dracula indicates that he was the son of Vlad II Dracul, the sobriquet in his case meaning that he as a member of the Order of the Dragon, a brotherhood committed to defending the Christian Faith. 

The novel Dracula is a spine-tingler, but it is more than that - there are serious themes, even if Stoker was writing a potboiler at the time. People who read it are often disturbed by the sheer sensuousness of the novel and of its protagonist the vampire count of Transylvania. He is seductive, he has an ability to charm his way to the neck of his victims; he is seen, in some strange way, to exude a potent sexuality which attracts women and even men. Writers and filmmakers have drawn on this, and as a result we now see the vampire as a deeply attractive figure, oozing sexuality and offering pleasure and a heightened experience of life. Stoker was not the first writer to see this: John Polidori and Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu in their vampire stories did the same. There is a message in this and it is simple: it reveals the sensuousness and delight that exists in temptations to evil.

The count is evil. He feeds on human blood, on that which gives life to the body and without which we dry up and die. Stoker's Dracula, though he stands at one remove in the narrative (he does not speak directly, but rather through the writings of the other characters), acts on our imagination both as a being of great horror and one which draws us to him. This is what evil does. By those who promote it, the devil in particular, evil is never presented as ugly, stinking or fearful; it is presented as beautiful, pleasant, attractive, even good. As the famous quip goes, 'How can something which feels so good be bad?' Indeed, that is the temptation. Dracula is the perfect embodiment of evil as he seems so attractive, yet he drinks the very life from his victims and leaves them dead, or worse, undead - shrivelled remnants of humanity forever driven to madness with a demonic thirst.

This is what evil and sin does to us. Presented as attractive, it can even be sensuous, something which brings pleasure and joy, it offers a life that is exciting, divorced from the dull life of puritanical faith. Evil offers freedom, where nothing holds us back: we live according to our desires and our will, and that will revels in satisfying our desires. To those he wishes to make like himself, Dracula offers a life beyond the limitations of ordinary human life: he is correct in his offer of a life beyond what is human, it is one in which the person remains on earth without dying again, where there is power - the lives of others fall within one's grasp; but it is life of alienation. Evil does this, it deludes us with a freedom that may see us dominate others, a life beyond the limitations of what is human - but one held captive within the limitations of death. Like the vampire, evil lives in the realm of death but not as a master, as a scavenger, a leech sucking out what is good in life but leaving only a taste of bitterness in the mouth, a profound bitterness of soul, an eternal despair.  The sensuous tempter turns to devour us, the lover who comes in the darkness to seduce leads us into darkness, suffocating darkness.

Dracula is a novel about this darkness; the protagonist is to be feared because he brings death and he is the personification of death, it is his realm. He cannot escape the grave: Dracula must bring his native soil with him when he moves to England: he is forever trapped - not even foreign soil can grant him refuge. His power is limited: he cannot enter a house unless he is invited - here we see the role free will must play in the dynamic of temptation: evil needs our assent to seduce us. The good news here - we can say no. He fears garlic - not just the smell, garlic was believed to cure blood disorders, it restores the balance to the blood, served as a disinfectant - it purifies. He fears the Sacred Host - the presence of Christ. In the novel Van Helsing and Mina take refuge within a circle of Hosts (not the most respectful use of the Blessed Sacrament, but a testament to the Real Presence). Holy Water is also anathema to the undead, and the fear of the light of the sun is also easily understood.

The most famous fears of the vampire is that of the cross. One of the questions raised in the first episode of the BBC series was why does Dracula fear the cross? Leaving the series to one side, we can look at that question in terms of the character Stoker has created. Dracula's aversion to the cross is interesting. The cross is the symbol of Christ, of God, faith and salvation: it is sacred - that is enough to drive away evil, and so it is. However, reflecting at a deeper level, it could be said that he fears it because, as he destroys souls through sensuality, draining blood for his own demonic nourishment, Christ saves souls through suffering and self-denial, offering his blood for salvation: as a minion of hell, the cross is the symbol of Dracula's enemy and that enemy's victory. Dracula fools his victims with the promise of eternal life - it is damnation, Christ offers true life and victory over death. Dracula dwells forever in death, thinks himself the master of those who inhabit it, he hates those who can journey to eternal life, to the life of the true Master. The cross is not a charm that frightens him, it is the potent sign of victory over death, because when death passes away, Dracula and his powers are no more: all he is, all he has, turns to dust. In all of this we see a metaphor for evil: evil fears the cross for the same reasons; the evil one is defeated by the cross, it will be forever the sign of his death and his ultimate insignificance.

The means of getting rid of a vampire is interesting. As Stoker assures us in his novel, it is a wooden stake through the heart. This comes from eastern European tradition. The aim of the stake was to stop the undead getting out of the grave, to pin them down to the earth. To ensure they stay down, the head was also removed or the body burned. However, might we also see, in a theological sense, the wood of the cross? As Christ was pinned to the wood of the cross for salvation, and with him sin is crucified, can we see the wood of the cross pin down and destroy sin, setting us free? 

Dracula, like its companion novel in horror, Frankenstein, serves as a warning to us: they are horror novels not in the sense that they intend to scare us with monsters, rather they reveal the horrors that can afflict us as human beings and turn us into monsters - lost souls. Sin is attractive, it can make us feel good, give us power, lead us to believe that we are free, but it is like the seductive figure standing outside the window asking us to let him in, in time it will feed on us and if it fulfils its promise and make us like itself, we will lose life itself and death will be our realm.

Whether you are watching the BBC series or not, if you have seen the various movies or not, it is worthwhile reading the novel, there is a lot going on thematically, more than what I have discussed above. Ignatius Press offers a critical edition and a study guide to accompany one's reading. It is a fine piece of writing, and as I said above, it is a scary read for its immediacy, that in itself is a tribute to the skill of the author.