The lair of the white worm

You might like this book if you believe in the intrinsic superiority of the white peoples over other races, particularly black folks. Since I really don't feel that way I found myself getting more and more irate until the "savage", intrinsically "primitive" "nigger" got killed off whilst attempting murder. One might of course, think that this was the view of the other characters only and it should not be infered that Stoker believed it. Unfortunately, Oolanga is a "nigger" to the narrator, too anf that narrator is not a character and so we must assume that it is Stoker's opinion.

Now with the black guy out of the way, you might think that the offensive attitudes might also go away but that would be to ignore the outrageous sexism and with three major female characters, none of whom die early on, one has to suffer that right to the end. Frankly, I can't explain the masochism that made me finish this book; it was pure self torture.

The sexism is for the most part somewhat more subtle than the racism; the heroine is allowed some strength of will, bravery and independence of mind - until she gets married, at which point she immediately requires her husband's opinion on everything and defers to his view as obviously superior - because he's her husband. Even her strength of will and bravery are nothing compared to his - because he's male, of course. Are you vomiting yet? Again, is this Stoker's view? Well, a male character, an older man who is meant to be a wise, ,knowledgable character, the font of wisdom for the younger protagonists and the reader finds that the Suffragettes, "want principle". Funny, I thought they were fighting for a principle!

One might argue that one should set all this aside, because it was the attitude of the time and instead look at the literary merits of the book when judging it. One would be wrong, however: the times - they were a changing. The Suffragette movement had started. Thomas Hardy had been fighting the cause of women for decades: this was a time for choosing sides. Stoker chose the repugnant side.

So maybe you are a scary person and don't find all this offensive, or maybe you are particularly good at compartmentalising the foulness from the plot and writing. If so you really still aren't in for a treat, or even a mediocre good time. No, you are in for a waste of effort.

The set up might sound familiar; a youngish, dynamic man with an older mentor, full of obscure wisdom and knowledge. Two attractive young women in danger. An ancient evil. (In this case a hilarious one, completely empty of power to horrify or instill terror.) The protagonists more or less don't do anything for an age, then the monster attacks them - there's a scene with a carriage being chased - then some completely baffling actions by the monster. Then a denouement that has been predictable for an age.

The only thing I really liked about Dracula was the powerful sense of dread in the opening section written from Transylvania. Nowhere in this book is there anything even remotely as affecting. What a heap of rubbish!