by Elizabeth Miller (2006) 2nd Edition.
Paperback. 234x156mm
208 pages
ISBN 1-905328-15-X
£14.99
The 1st Edition hardback (2000) is out of print.
Six chapters:
1. The Sources for Dracula;
2. Stoker and the Writing of Dracula;
3. The Novel;
4. The Geography of Dracula;
5. Vlad the Impaler;
6. Source Alert.
Professor Miller demolishes many commonly-held
beliefs about Bram Stoker's famous novel.
Had Bram Stoker ever heard of Vlad the Impaler? No!
Is there a real Castle Dracula? No!
Must Dracula stay out of the sunlight? No!
"Let me state unequivocally, Dracula: Sense & Nonsense
is a very important volume. It stands out amid the many publications
of the last decade and joins that small select set of books that
belongs among the desk references of every serious scholar, researcher,
and writer in the field." Professor J Gordon Melton, Cesnur.
"Miller's book is the latest bitter exchange between the warring camps of 'Draculites' ... I loved the nits picked in this." Professor John Sutherland, The Good Book Guide.
"What treasured myths are exploded ... Any researcher in the field of Dracula studies would do well to consult Miller's book." Kathy Krusberg, The Vampire's Crypt.
"[This books] lays to rest close to one hundred popular misconceptions ... [It is] a coffin full of bones worth picking and dirt worth turning; an undeniably enlightening read." Rue Morgue.
"Chapter 5 thoroughly debunks the idea that Stoker had the notorious Vlad Tepes in mind when he created his infamous Count ... I think that Miller's work is an important one - a valuable corrective in many ways." Anthony Ambrogio, in Video Watchdog.
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 come at a cost: the dissemination
of an unsettling amount of unreliable information. The time has
come 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 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 speculations (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; false 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.
At times we are dealing with specialists in other fields who are
just "passing through." Rather than go through the legwork,
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 employed for the foundation of new findings.
Other writers 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 numer-ous
television and video documentaries. While I appreciate that interviews
for the media are often heavily edited (I have suffered from this
myself), I feel justified in quoting from such broadcasts. Many
viewers are convinced that anything stated on A&E or on the
History Channel in the United States, or the BBC in the United
Kingdom, must be accurate. Alas, this is not the case!
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 scrutiny,
employing the same research methods applied to more canonized
works of literature. The disturbing proliferation of inaccuracies
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. Numerous books and television documentaries
are clearly aimed more at attracting readers and viewers than
at enlightenment. And to date, no one else has taken 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 reconstruc-tions, 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 several prominent writers and scholars, for many of whom I
have the deepest respect. I have made no exceptions, not to books
on Dracula written by my editor, Clive Leatherdale, nor my own
material. 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.
I was pleased to accept Clive's suggestion that each entry begin
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 shaky 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 a 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 offers no new interpretations of Dracula. As
a rule, I do not challenge interpretations of the novel; but if
they are based on distortions or inaccuracies, then I consider
them fair game. Nor do I object to speculation, 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 some readers might
pose. 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 diminish the pleasure that anyone finds in my
favorite novel. But 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 am happy for it to be brought to
my attention. New information that has come to light since 2000
(for example, the results of preliminary findings by Robert Eighteen-Bisang
concerning the typescript of Dracula) has been incorporated
into this revised edition.
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 written debut 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
Toronto, Canada
February 2006