Classic Literature

Hooray, I finally finished reading Dracula!

Why, you ask? Well, I had intended to read it as a "seasonal" selection for Halloween. I've read it once before in college for one of my favorite classes: Feasts of Blood and Gore--Varieties of the Gothic, if I remember the course name accurately. It didn't draw me in as quickly this time as it did then, though I suspect that is in part due to the fact that it wasn't required reading. I picked it up a few times, then the holidays came and went. No place for a vampire in Christmas celebrations!

But I'm back on a reading "kick," so I was determined to finish a book that's been basically gathering dust for 20 years. (To see what I've completed so far in my one-dollar book, you can check here and here.) I have to admit it was almost as if I were reading it for the first time. Sure, the characters and plot were familiar, but most of the details were virtually new to me. Of course, I remembered basically how the story ends. It was not, however, the way I had envisioned it. I definitely enjoyed it, though; and while it may not come off the shelf every Halloween as any sort of tradition, it was truly worth the time I spent on it.

What may be my favorite part, however, happened as I was in the home stretch. I came across a line that almost had me reaching for my highlighter. As our heroes are closing in on Dracula, they realize there were more clues waiting for them in their earlier notes and journals. Dr. Van Helsing remarks, "...when we can look back we see what we might have seen looking forward if we had been able to see what we might have seen! Alas! but that sentence is a puddle; is it not?"

That caught my attention for two reasons. In the grand scheme of things, it's true that sometimes we have to look to the past to understand and appreciate the present. It is said that hindsight is 20-20, and I know I've often found that to be true. You don't always know what you're looking for or what you can learn until that moment has passed.

On a smaller scale, however, I was so happy to see another example of how Stoker succeeds at showing us that English is clearly not Van Helsing's native language. Throughout the book, he speaks like someone who hasn't quite mastered all of the vocabulary and nuances of English. It's perfectly believable and natural sounding. What made me almost laugh out loud, however, was Van Helsing recognizing this in his own speech. He knows "that sentence is a puddle." It's a difficult concept to explain, made more difficult by him trying to find the best words.  He is editing himself, and that appeals to me.

Next time I proofread or edit a piece, perhaps I'll use the "puddle" line on a sentence that could use some clarity. On second thought, I don't want to risk being staked with my own red pen.