“The children of the night; what music they make!”
Everyone should be familiar with Dracula. Bram Stoker’s iconic 1897 novel has been printed and filmed in numerous versions and adaptations. The Count has become a figure recognizable to most people, even if they have never read the novel itself. But perhaps not so well known is the short story Dracula’s Guest.
Published first in 1914, two years after Stoker’s death, Dracula’s Guest follows an unnamed protagonist, assumed to be Jonathan Harker, out for a ride around Munich, Germany. He leaves his carriage and takes a walk through the deserted countryside and ends up in a strange adventure. Dracula’s Guest has been assumed to be the intended first chapter of Dracula but that it was excised by the publishers for its length and lack of necessity to the overall story.
Here at the Pub for our kick-off to the October Festivities, we’ll read and discuss Dracula’s Guest. It’s not a very long story, so feel free to start adding your comments and thoughts as soon as you’ve read it. You may find it here and here. If you’d like to listen to an audio version, B.J. Harrison from The Classic Tales podcast has a version of Dracula’s Guest available at either iTunes or Audible for a whopping $0.69!
Also, if you would like to compare Dracula’s Guest to the first chapter of Dracula, you may find copies online here and here. There are also numerous cheap copies of both print and audio versions of Dracula available.
Have at it, and enjoy!
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
What an obnoxious protagonist, with his English blood and his English superiority and his English expectation that all the inhabitants of the countries he visits should speak his language – or be considered halfwits.
Makes me wish Johann could quote from The Holy Grail:
You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called “Arthur King,” you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.
“Children of the night! Shut up!”
If this was an alternate chapter 1 to the book, I prefer this one. Although I agree with Red Rocker that the snooty Englishman deserved anything that was coming to him, Harker is even more bigoted in the book:
The women looked pretty, except when you got near them, but they were very clumsy about the waist. Whatever that means.
However, after watching a bit of The Amazing Race on telly, expecting foreigners to speak your language is not a uniquely English phenomenon. At least he’s not wearing bermuda shorts and loudly saying how cheap everything is here.
… But back to the story. I liked the image of the woman in the tomb, lit only by lightning strikes.
I got a bit tired of restive horses (Johann wasn’t helping by whispering ‘Blucher’ to them).
Even the superior Englishman getting-what’s-coming-to-him thing worked for me. Just because you say things don’t exist doesn’t make them go away. He’s nicely disoriented by the end of the story and ripe for gothic picking.
As a short story it leaves me wanting more. Lots of things to ponder and wonder.
So, have you picked up on the arrogant, condescending, paternalistic attitude of the protagonist?
Black Angus,
Frau Blucher. Apparently “Blucher” is German for “glue”. A word to make horses shudder.
Clumsy about the waist means that they couldn’t pick up their sauerkraut properly with their belly rolls. I thought it obvious.
Harker’s attitude is highly selective. He doen’t mind the Dutch- Van Helsing. It reminds me of an episode of Father Ted-
Farmer-”I hear you’re a racist now, Father. How did you get interested in that type of thing, then? Should we all be racists now? What’s the official stance the Church’s taken on this?”
Fr Ted- “No, no!”
Farmer- “Only the farm takes up most of the day and at night I just like a cup of tea. I might not be able to devote myself full time to the old racism.”
Mrs Carberry-”Good for you, Father!”
Fr Ted- “What? Oh, Mrs Carberry.”
Mrs Carberry- “Good for you! Someone had the guts to stand up to them at last! Coming over here, taking our jobs and out women and acting like they own the fecking place! Well done, Father! Good for you! Good for you! I’d like to fecking…(Swings shopping bags)… Fecking Greeks!”
Farmer- “It isn’t the Greeks, it’s the Chinese he’s after!”
Fr Ted-”I’m not after the Chinese!”
Mrs Carberry-”I don’t care as long as I can have a go at the Greeks! They invented gayness!”
Fr Ted-”Look we’re not having a go at anybody! I am not a racist, all right?! God!”
Yes, revgeorge, I did pick up on the “arrogant, condescending, paternalistic attitude” of the protagonist. Like Red Rocker, I felt that the protagonist(Harker?) was wearing his Englishness like a cloak, which he clearly thought protected him from the silly superstitious behavior of Johann, his guide. It’s almost funny the way that he takes Johann’s lapses into German when the man is clearly trying to warn him off, but doesn’t have the ability to phrase it in English. Good Lord, you’d think the man would at least pick up a word or two, as English is essentially a Germanic language, but no, his mind is on the fact that poor Johann can’t speak properly. What an Ass he is, that Harker.(Hope that’s not too strong of language for this forum;if it is, I apologize). My primary impression after reading the story was, why does the man have to be such a dolt? I like to think if I were in a strange country, and someone were trying to warn me off, and the horses were acting like they were getting spooked by something out there, I’d be pretty darn scared, and thankful to have some means to get out of there as quickly as possible. Since we’re in a group primarily discussing Harry Potter, I think it’s clear that the man in this story is a type of Professor Binns. “Nothing but fact” for him, so he doesn’t trust his own senses and the signals he is picking up. Thus he puts down as silly native superstitions major clues that should tell him that he’s not in a safe place, and he should trust Johann, and go with him. If it’s not written down in black and white, though, he can’t understand or appreciate it. Like Black Angus put it, he’s ripe for gothic picking.
Good comments all. Considering that Stoker is writing this to, at the time, a British audience, do you think he’s trying to make a point about British snobbery & the sort of colonial attitude the British took towards people of other lands & cultures? Not, as some have noted, that this is an attitude only the British have. Americans are just as bad, if not worse, & we don’t even have a dignified accent to make us sound somewhat noble as we do it!
Fricka, certainly you’ve diagnosed Harker, who is a solicitor, correctly as a “just the facts” man. At least he is at first until he’s confronted with “facts” beyond his or science’s ability to explain. Dracula is a wonderful book in that there is a tension throughout the book between science, rationalism, superstition, & religion. It’s a tension that Van Helsing is able to work with quite well, but he has to school his younger companions, except for Harker who has learned the hard way, to, as Trelawney would say, broaden their minds.
The comments above have emphasized Harker’s snobbish attitude and air of superiority. I agree that they are there; but are we imposing our 21st Century sensibilities on a book that was written in the 1890’s? Perhaps Stoker was simply trying to write a good story and he depicted Harker as a typical upper class Englishman of the time. What do you all think?
In response to Charlie’s question, I think that Stoker needed a way of warning the reader that things were really wrong, while putting his protagonist in the midst of danger. Hence the requirement for an unnaturally dense protagonist. Reminds me of the scene in horror movies where the scantily clad heroine heads up the attic stairs holding a flickering candle, determined to check out where the groaning is coming from, when anyone in their right mind would have left the house at the sound of the first moan. In other words: it’s a plot device.
revgeorge I don’t really know that the British of the late 19th century were convinced of their moral superiority. Certainly that’s what people say. And that’s what I get from reading Kipling. I wonder, sometimes, how accurate a reflection of the contemporary mores we get from reading the fiction of an era.
I think like Lovecraft after him, Stoker is setting up his protagonist for a big fall. Stolid, proper, blinkered, normal, and about to be swept away by the irrational, superstitious, weird, but no less real or dangerous for being so. It’s the fact that Harker can see these things happening but has no understanding or words for them that makes the scene in the graveyard so confusing and compelling. He’s suddenly been swept out to sea and he has nothing to anchor himself. All the superiority he felt was a sham.
Have to say it before anyone else does: Jonathan Harker is a Gothic heroine.
Charlie, I think you’re quite right in that the task of any reader is to make sure they’re not reading their meanings into the text nor imposing their cultural beliefs on the text.
Of course, even with our cultural sensitivities we still succumb to many of the same prejudices & stereotypes as people of the past did. Even the most supposedly tolerant, liberal, open minded people of today, still have prejudices & stereotypes they run with.
Red Rocker, yes, I don’t know the answer to the question either, is Stoker showing us an accurate view of the contemporary scene? Is he trying to make a point? I don’t know. Obviously the way the story is written makes a point. The Englishman doesn’t listen to the knowledge of the peasant & ends up thrown off his kilter. I liked the way Black Angus described it in #10.
Anyway, isn’t this a little bit of literary irony? We are in the know, that is to say, we, the reader, expect something to be coming while the protagonist has no reason to not think the superstitions of the peasant are merely that, superstitions.
Red Rocker – a gothic heroine as opposed to hero? Go on…..
This was written in the heart of colonialistic hegemony of English globalism. Maybe not the golden years – but the waning, and avoidance of the decline of it. Of course the protagonist is going to seem like a egoistic prick. India and Ghandi are just around the corner.
Man, I hate being on the west coast. Everyone’s asleep when I post. Bummer.
No, really, Joivre.
Speaking of heroines, has anyone noticed how determinedly hetro Dracula is? Girls bite guys. Guys bite girls. Girls do not bite girls. Guys do not bite guys.
Ah – so.
Joivre,
Enough with the Chinese racial stereotyping!
Sorry. Perhaps it should have read:
Ahh! So?
gee Korg, are you serious?
Not at all.
Just yanking your chain to see if you’ll flush.
Uh oh, I think I’ve overstayed my welcome here.
Nup.
It was an attempt at humour.
Please stay.
I am appreciating your input.
Matthew
Red Rocker wrote: “Speaking of heroines, has anyone noticed how determinedly hetro Dracula is? Girls bite guys. Guys bite girls. Girls do not bite girls. Guys do not bite guys.”
Perhaps because Stoker’s works are not just about sex, as many modern commentators are wont to think. Anyway, if you want some of the other action, then Le Fanu’s Carmilla is the place to go.
Joivre is on the right track. Harker is a member of “the empire where the sun never sets.” he has all the confidence and hubris of the WWII-on American, boldly tromping, with arrogant attitude, where angels fear to tread. We think our empires will live forever. Britain is in the height of colonialism, with a superior attitude to Those Not Like Them (such as Italians, Gypsies, foreign peasants, and Third World inhabitants not in British uniform or mufti). The Ugly Briton.
In a way, he’s almost a satirical character. That said, he’s basically a goodhearted fellow, who is, as Red Rocker said, a gothic heroine (good one, RR), who is lured into something over his head until it’s too late to flee the attic.
Funny thing, revgeorge: my conclusion from the same observation was that it is all about sex. I actually wrote that, then deleted it, thinking we should mine the story for other things before going for the bottom line.
BTW, I did read Carmilla. Piece of fluff.
I can’t take credit for the view of Harker as Gothic heroine: it’s someone else’s thesis.
Is there someone out there who’s pegged Harker as a Gothic heroine? I’d be interested in reading the reasons. I’m not sure upon what that’d be based. If we’re talking about Dracula as a whole, Mina, not Jonathan, is the the obvious Gothic heroine.
Look, I’m not saying sexual issues aren’t being addressed at all in Stoker’s works, but really, to see that as the only thing going on is really a rather narrow reading & probably more indicative of our sex obsessed culture projecting stuff back onto people in the past. Even wikipedia doesn’t see Dracula as only about sex!
Anyway, in this post, we’re not really talking about Dracula but Dracula’s Guest. The only part of Dracula that would be helpful to read for that is chapter 1. And I think we’ve hit upon some of the other topics addressed in Stoker’s works, colonialism & rationalism vs folklore, etc.
Great discussion, everyone! I did get a chuckle out of thinking of Harker as a “Gothic Heroine”!
Now I’d like to try to move the discussion a bit more into the latter part of “Dracula’s Guest”, as I have a couple of observations and question or two for the rest of you. I believe I mentioned before that I am using an annotated version of Dracula which includes the DG story and criticisms and commentary at the end. Before I get to sharing from one of the pieces that I found most interesting, I want to ask, did anyone else make a connection between the figure of the “man tall and thin” , whom Harker spied on the road as Johann was leaving, and who seemingly caused the horses to “jump and kick about, then to scream with terror,” and the wolf who later was lying on top of Harker in the graveyard? On my first reading, I thought the man was maybe Dracula himself, but now I think he may have been a Were-Wolf, still in man form on the road when he confronted the carriage and horses. In an article by Emily Gerard, From Transylvanian Superstition, she writes,
” First cousin to the vampire, the long-exploded were-wolf of the Germans is here to be found, lingering yet under the name of the Prikolitsch. Sometimes it is a dog instead of a wolf, whose form a man has taken either voluntarily or as penance for his sins.” Frankly, I found myself skeptical at the passage when Harker woke to find himself covered by a wolf who was merely licking his throat. What was going on here? This isn’t “usual” Were-Wolf behavior–is it? It seemed a bit more vampirish to me, which was confusing. So I’m wondering–just what IS “kosher” Were-Wolf behavior? I admit that my thinking on the subject has been influenced by JKR’s portrayal of Remus Lupin, who, when he transforms, does not retain any human memory, and thus cannot make differentiation between “friend”(don’t kill) and “prey” (kill). I’m trying to recall whether that is true of the “traditional” Were-Wolf, or if that character is considered to retain human reasoning, just transforming into animal form. I guess what I’m trying to get to, in my long-winded way(Sorry Dave, for borrowing your moniker), is whether the Were-Wolf is knowingly an agent of evil. If so, is that only Stoker’s slant, or is it true in most other WW stories other than the HP books? Your thoughts?
I would think of Harker as gothic heroine (loosely) only during his time in Transylvania. But I wouldn’t stake (heh) my life on it. Back to Fricka’s interesting question.
Frika, I too thought at first that the figure of the man was Dracula, but it really could have been the werewolf before his transformation. You definitely raise some good questions about werewolves. I can’t speak for all of werewolf mythology, but I would have to say that in the few (more recent) examples that I am familiar with there is never a clear definition between the human and the wolf – it isn’t always that simple. Usually as a wolf, he or she does not retain any human reasoning, but it is as a human that we often see a conflict between man and wolf.
I wanted to also add that when I read the inscription on the tomb (“The dead travel fast”) that the image that came to my mind was of (Harry’s vision of) Voldemort flying towards Nurmengard and Grindelwald. I’m not sure how everyone else interprets this line (aside from the obvious literal interpretation: vampires can move quickly), but to me it feels like the exact opposite of the two inscriptions on the headstones in the Godric’s Hollow graveyard. In HP these inscriptions clearly mean that the dead will always remain with us in our hearts and memories, that those we loved can never truly die. In Dracula’s Guest, I get the impression that that the inscription “The dead travel fast” means that they travel fast away from us, because though vampires may look human, they are far from it.
re: Werewolves. It seems that this wolf, whatever it is, is under the control of/in league with Dracula. Its job was to ‘keep [Harker's] blood warm.’ It kept him alive until help arrived. The only warmth he felt was in his chest where the creature lay. Its yelps guided the soldiers in. But did it fight off the female vampire? Not sure. It seemed at least to drag him out of there.
My first impression of the tall man on the hill was Dracula, but it could have been one of Dracula’s servants who handily was a werewolf.
However, we get no indication that it was a werewolf. Harker heard the howls of wolves, so it might just be another creature under Dracula’s sway. But I’ll admit it’s a pretty cluey wolf.
I’m pretty sure that the wolf was the Count himself – he has the ability to turn himself into different critters of the night: wolf, bat and something else which I can’t remember. Plus, I don’t think we get introduced to any other characters who can turn themselves into critters of the night, at least not any tall, thin males who can do so. Can’t remember if the three brides can shape shift, but they’d be unlikely to appear as a tall, thin male. We know that Renfield (whom I’ll always see as Arte Johnson) can’t shape shift. He is murder on flies, though. All that is from the book, of course. If we limit ourselves to the story, it is impossible to say with certainty who the tall, thin dude is.
About Harker as Gothic heroine: I was only basing that on the story (aka unpublished first chapter). As Travis notes, the rest of the book has an obvious Gothic heroine in the shape of Ms. Mina.
And as far as I know, there is no one out there who’s pegged Mr. Harker as a Gothic Heroine (GH.) His semi-idiotic determination to walk into the jaws of death (or undeath) despite the repeated warnings of someone who knows the country better than he does, not to mention going on a hike without thinking about how long the return trip will take, and with a snowstorm in the offing – all that made me think of those hapless heroines who are rescued from certain death in the nick of time by the dark, brooding anti-hero. Wouldn’t ordinarily have thought of a man in the role of GH, but that interpretation was raised on these pages in December 2008:
http://thehogshead.org/beedle-was-a-gothic-calvinist/
I think it likely the wolf was the Count, as well as the tall, thin man. The note Harker receives at the end from the Count warning of snow & wolves, etc, seems to connect all three together. Plus, there seems to be some conflation at times between the legends of vampires & werewolves.
Yes, the Harker of Dracula’s Guest is quite the arrogant twit. And rather idiotic. You’d think even if he wouldn’t give any credence to all that “undead’ hooey, he’d still be able to understand “There’s a snowstorm coming!! You might not want to be out & about in it in only your frock coat, you dolt!!”
Harker is the Watson in the mystery. Putting up the why or why not more than any other character. He’s a dork and at the same time part of the danger of the Dracula. He’s unimportant and yet vital. I’ve never come across a more impotent yet important figure in literatue.
Gee – come to think of it. Neville?
Neville did find his warrior cred in the final battle. Having your supper with your blood stained sword resting on the table next to you, now that’s the stuff Viking legends are made of.
Another candidate for impotent/important might be Ichabod Crane.
True, true. Neville is a warrior at last. I didn’t think that one would really stick but I threw it out there.
Crane – yes! Forgot about him.
It was interesting reading this chapter just weeks after reading Dracula for the first time. Despite being thoroughly creeped out by it, I really did enjoy the book. This first piece didn’t haunt me at all till the note from Dracula himself at the end; I was too busy rolling my eyes at the protagonist’s idiocy.
The wolf made little sense to me, either in the book or in Dracula’s Guest. (This might be due to my having read the book in a blazing hurry owing to the pressure of suspense.) Hearing people’s theories on it helped some. Revgeorge, I think you must be right.
Jenna, glad you finally read Dracula; hopefully the Count will not make too many assaults on your dreams!
I think you’ve hit on part of the appeal of Dracula, its creepiness. Which I think still stands up today. I’ve read the book numerous times, and one, it never gets old, and two, it’s always got that creepy feeling. I don’t know if it’s the epistolary nature of the work as opposed to a narrative that continues to give it that power. That the methodical researched way in which the book reads almost lends it a credibility in your mind, is this just a story or is there something to it?
Jenna and revgeorge, right on target. You usually think of older “creepy” stuff as having passed into cliche and no longer being scary. But the creepy factor of Dracula is still strong and has outlasted by far the film adaptations of the Dracula concept which came decades and decades later.
I agree with Jenna, revgeorge, and Travis about the creepiness factor. I think revgeorge is on the right track in thinking it’s the way the book is put together, so that the reader has the impression of reading journals, rather than the regular narrative form, that helps give it that sense of immediacy, years after the book first appeared. However, after reading Dracula’s Guest, I’ve had some pondering about the relationship of the Count to the Wolf figure. If the Count is the thin and tall man who frightened the horses, that makes sense, as they would pick up on him as a predator, likewise if the figure was a Were-wolf in man form. But, if as revgeorge thinks, the Count was the tall, thin man AND the wolf, that is a bit confusing. Maybe it’s because I’ve been exposed to other works that present vampires and were-wolves as being opposed to each other. The Charlaine Harris Sookie Stackhouse series of books, for example, on which the TV show TruBlood is based, has those two in opposite camps which have enmity towards each other. I can’t remember if that was true of Buffy the Vampire Killer, but I think(correct me if this is wrong) that it’s also the case with the Twilight books. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a lot more creepy if the Count himself is able to shapeshift into all those different forms. But, what I don’t understand is, why? Why, if the count was that tall thin man, and later the wolf, did he save Harker at that point? Why didn’t he pounce on him when he was out alone and helpless and turn him into a fellow vampire at that point?
Fricka, you’re right in that nowadays we have a much clearer distinction between werewolves and vampires. But that wasn’t so clear cut back in the day, a lot of these superstitions & folkloric images ran together. Stoker did do an intensive study of folklore of Romania & related areas before he wrote Dracula. Although the part with a vampire turning into a bat was fairly new, since stories of vampire bats had circulated over from the Americas.
The idea of the count being the wolf is predicated on the scene in Dracula when the ship carrying Dracula to England crashes during a storm & a large dog or wolf leaps from the ship & disappears into the woods. I’ve always thought this was the Count, so have always assumed that it would be him in wolf form in Dracula’s Guest. Of course, Dracula is also able to manipulate wolves & rats, & he does so in the novel, so he could possibly be manipulating a wolf in this scene in Guest to protect Harker.
As to why Dracula doesn’t immediately turn Harker into a vampire, well, he still needs him to help him get across to England.
I ask myself why Dracula is creepy: and it is creepy.
I think part of the reason is the story is told entirely from the perspective of the victims/vampire hunters, most of whom are totally naive as to the ways of vampires. Thus the reader shares their initial sense of dread, their growing understanding, and their sense of horror as the full reality of the vampire emerges. Also, there is no attempt to humanize or domesticate this vampire: not for him Eric Northman’s Corvette, Lestat’s rock god concerts or Bella and Edward sharing a desk in biology class. This is one unreclaimed 15th century impaler. And then there’s the transformation of his victims and allies: Renfield is disgusting and Lucy is pathetic in a frightening sort of way. There’s nothing romantic about their fate.
Red Rocker, I very much agree. It’s set up as a reality travelogue to hell. In a way, it reminds me of the Blair Witch Project.
Sorry to post twice – re the reality travelogue – but all of a sudden I had this image of Anthony Bourdain sitting down to nice gourmet meal with Vlad the Impaler.
AB: What’s good to drink around here?
VtI: Funny you should ask….
Revgeorge and Red Rocker, I think you’ve both given good reasons for the successfully timeless creepiness of Dracula. These methodical researchers are two doctors, a precise solicitor and his equally precise wife. Men of science, man and woman of fact and detail. Not the harebrained sort that just goes skulking half-clad up a flight of cobwebby stairs to see what made the floors creak. Likewise, we feel their growing horror in their own thoughts and journalings, and as you say, RR, this is no humanized postmodern monster they fight.
Actually, all that is part of why Dracula’s Guest fails for me. Stoker was a brilliant writer, but if that protagonist is supposed to be Harker, he plays more of a fool in the excised bit than I remember him doing in the first chapter. It was less believable, for me anyway.
Although, admittedly Van Helsing’s freedom with the Eucharist cost me my suspension of disbelief a few times in the book itself!
I’m a bit late to the discussion, but I wanted to point out the yew trees in the story. Symbol of death & resurrection… wood of Riddle’s wand… landscaping of Malfoy Manor… All of which made my daughter roll her eyes and exclaim, “It’s not a Potter reference, Mom, just read!”
Red Rocker, Joivre, revgeorge, and Jenna re Drac’s creepiness–you really nail it. I would add that as the epistolary entries are in the present tense, the reader is experiencing events with the characters. Present-tense writing always adds immersion and urgency, especially with a mystery.
I read Dracula almost two ago (and hadn’t previously read vampire lit or seen any vampire movies (not even Lugosi!). I expected it to be rather tame and was surprised at how creepy and grotesque it was.
Artie Johnson as Renfield! And being “murder on flies”! Thanks, Red Rocker, for my laugh of the day.
By the way – if anyone is interested in this sort of thing. Philip Glass re-scored the 1931 film of Dracula. You can get it on Amazon or download from Rhapsody. It’s really beautiful. It’s great to listen to while reading.
I love the soundtrack of The Hours and can listen to it over and over and over. Especially what I call track #10 (Why Does Someone Have to Die?) I think I’ll give the Dracula soundtrack a try.