Throughout the novel the editor comments on how the book Dracula differs from the film. The first such instance described Dracula’s hairiness, “film adaptations avoid Dracula’s hairiness; different as they are from each other most cinematic Dracula’s are clean shaven…these hairy palms are one of Dracula’s few affinities with the werewolf (and in the opinion of some commentators, with the Victorian masturbator as well.”(24) While I don’t think that Dracula’s pleasure is ever autoerotic, the very idea of the vampire is one who feeds of others to survive, I did find Dracula’s werewolf qualities interesting. In addition Dracula is described as having a uni-brow and a large white moustache, drastically different from any vampire I have ever seen.
Although it makes sense for a vampire to grow a moustache if he could, it helps hiding big fangs. Another strange example of how novel Dracula differs from film adaptations is when Jonathan Harker witnesses Dracula leaving, crawling down the sheer face of his castle walls face down. The related footnote seemed odd to me, “Jonathan’s repeated association of the crawling Dracula with a lizard aligns the vampire with those monstrous proofs of Darwinian evolution, dinosaurs-which Victorian scientists classified as reptiles-rather than with the mammalian bat.”(39) This was the first instance I had heard of with Dracula crawling around rather then flying, but I did not compare Dracula to a dinosaur in my mind or see how evolution tied into the equation at all. Later on in the story Dracula transforms into a large black dog, a mammal. And Dracula’s vampire brides transform into moonbeams while harassing Jonathan in the castle. My point being vampires abilities are much more likely to be tied with the supernatural then with Darwinian evolution.
All-in-all I found the barrage of footnotes helpful. The majority of notes deal with the names of nationalities and geography in the start of the novel. The editors call continuity on Bram Stoker a few times, though I worry they might be jumping the gun. The footnotes draw constant correlations with the Bible and Shakespeare, and without the notes I would miss most of the references entirely. But a select few notes seem unnecessary, “The first of many tributes to Dracula’s mastery of languages.” Is footnote number 9 on page 18. While I in no way disagree, I don’t think the editors need to add in the patterns they see.
The novel’s footnotes also play up the aspects of technology in the novel, giving the introduction every piece of gadgetry an aside. I only wish that the same were done for each mention of religion. While many of the superstitions are described to us, and there are a good number of footnotes concerning Biblical references, the technology in the novel is examined closely under a microscope, the subverted purpose of specific characters and their relation to the equipment pondered, while I am left scratching my head over the meaning of old men giving monologues on the dead and the grim reaper.
“There is legend that a white lady is seen in one of the windows.”(63) This brief aside reminded me deeply of the novel “The Monk”. The ghost is a part of local legend and there is speculation as to her true identity as well as why she walks the ruins of Whitby Abbey. I also had strong vibes of the Monk when the gypsy woman comes to the castle after her child is taken from her by Dracula and eaten. She pounds on her chest and has a fit outside the main door. But instead of the character falling sick from her outburst, she is eaten by an army of wolves sent by Dracula almost immediately.