Dracula in Istanbul: The Unauthorized Version of the Gothic Classic By Ali Rıza Seyfioğlu

Dracula in Istanbul: The Unauthorized Version of the Gothic Classic

By Ali Rıza Seyfioğlu

Ali Riza Seyfioglu lived through many drastic changes. He was born in 1879 in the Ottoman Empire and basically lived through the end of the empire (I have no idea what that would be like…). The year he was born for example the first year of Bulgaria's independence and Serbia’s formal independence from the Ottoman Empire was recognized internationally that year as well, although they had thrown out the Ottoman's decades prior. Throughout his early years, the Ottoman Empire went from one of the Great Powers of Europe and the Middle East to the prey of ambitious colonial powers (Which is both a good and bad thing. Bad because they should not have been made prey, good because they should not have been ruling over… well, everything within Janissary range of Anatolia). Egypt went from imperial province to supposedly submissive vassal state to a protectorate of the British Empire. Libya was outright conquered from them by the Italians (You know you’re in a bad way when the Italians start taking your stuff. In WWI, Germany was shackled to the walking corpse that was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Said walking corpse managed to dunk on the Italians.) and then came the utter disaster of World War I, the primarily agrarian Ottoman Empire somehow walked itself into a war with most of the industrialized world (Yeah, that did not go so well for them at all.). I'm not going to get too deep into the weeds of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, it's a deeply complicated subject with a lot of other things happening. Like the Arab revolt, or the Armenian Genocide (Which happened. The Turks deny it and get away with it because they are important geopolitically, but they fucking did it. They deported thousands of Armenians… into the Black Sea. As in, took them out on boats, and chucked them over the side. To say nothing of the fucking Death March into Syria.{All of this is true, but let's stick to the novel}), and more. I'm just going to note that at the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire basically just didn't exist anymore. Its holdings were partitioned off to the victors, a good number of those in violation of promises the victors made to the natives, and the Greeks came knocking in the Greco-Turkish War. I'm not going to get into that war either, just note that the Greeks lost that war and for the Turks, if the end of WWI was the depths of despair, their seeing off the Greeks was the beginning of pulling themselves out of the abyss. Although some ethnic groups will see it differently. Going on at the same time was the Turkish War of Independence where the Turks fought to hold on to Anatolia against basically all comers. They won and the Republic of Turkey was declared and formally recognized by the world in 1923.

At this point, Ali Riza Syfioglu was in his mid-40s and was an English translator working as the head of a branch office of the Shipping Chamber of Commerce in Istanbul, where he translated/wrote what he published as Kazikli Voyvoda or Impaler Prince; which is the title that the Turks gave to the historic Dracula. He would claim to be the original writer which is odd considering the vast majority of this book is basically a copy of Bram Stoker's work (Plagiarism never ends.). I suppose he felt that his changes were enough to make the claim (Or he didn’t care.) and given that the book was first published in Ottoman script in 1928 (being re-released in the new Turkish Latin script in 1947) a year before Florence Stoker passed away, it was never really tested in court. Now, this isn't Ali Riza Syfioglu's only work, he's written about 29 published works, mostly history as he was a naval officer in the Ottoman navy and was trained to have an interest in military history, but also wrote at least six fictional works I know of and one book of poetry. So like many people in his situation, Ali Riza turned to patriotism or nationalism depending on what you want to call it to center himself in the face of the changes and losses he had experienced. Also to recognize the great achievements of the Turkish people in managing to fight off several invasions of their homeland and keep from being colonized by the Western Powers. Who, let's be honest, if they’d thought the Turks to be weak enough, would have done it. That said I don't think the Turks themselves can cry foul too loudly given that when they found the Europeans to be weak and disorganized, they merrily proceeded on their own imperial ambitions and for a time openly discussed ruling the world (And they genocided the Armenians, who look like they’re going to war with a Turkish proxy right now.). I'm not saying this to excuse anyone's actions here, just to note the context in which those actions were taken. Well, let's take a look at the novel itself here, shall we? Warning: I will be including spoilers because the book is about 90 years old!

Dracula in Istanbul is very streamlined compared to the original novel, Ali Riza removed a number of the “side stories” of the original novel, such as the story of the ship that brought Dracula to England or the story of how Dracula basically stole a wolf from the zoo to break into Lucy's (renamed Sadan in this novel) home. I have to admit I'm not entirely a fan of that, but I can understand omitting the boat story entirely given that sailing from Romania to Istanbul just isn't that long and hazardous a trip and it makes sense that Dracula would just control himself until he's a big city to hunt in (Yeah, that trip would be really trivial.). Especially compared to sailing from Romania to London. He does introduce the brides of Dracula but they are left without any real impact in the story as Ali Riza chooses to finish the book in Istanbul instead of having Dracula flee back to Romania. So they show up as a menace in Dracula's castle but are never given a final fate, which I suppose means in this version they might still be lurking in Romania, devouring anyone they catch (Probably. They were really bloody thirsty.{Well, that’s gonna be a problem}). All the human characters are renamed and remade into Turks, although there isn't much of a change in their characters or social positions. Although instead of being an Aristocrat, Major Turan Bey (this book's version of Arthur) is a Turkish officer and the son of an officer, which is I suppose as close as the Turkish Republic of the time could have to nobility. The streamlining I think does hurt the characterization, however, especially of the female characters. In the original novel, we have the ladies spending time with colorful locals and learning some traditions and customs which gives us more insight to them but that's not present here. Which makes the book a bit more... Bland. The book is also moved in time to take place in the 1920s, after the Turkish War of Independence. Oh, quick note, the use of the word Bey is apparently something like the English word Mr. as it is always given as part of the characters name in the book, I use it in the review but I wanted to note that so my readers weren't asking why all these men had the same last name. (It’s a Turkish honorific. Historically, it was the title for a chieftain but it’s meaning has shifted over time and now it is a formal title akin to a Sir or a very old-school use of Mister, which is derived from Master. It is used with first names though, as opposed to with the Surname.)

I have to also admit that part of me mutters in rebellion of the characters being turned into a single nationality. The original book had Americans, Dutch and English folks working together, I kind of feel myself trying to mutter to Ali Riza across time and space “What you couldn't include a single Kurd, Jewish person, or maybe even a Turk from Iraq?” (Well the Kurds don’t exist Viking. They’re Mountain Turks, clearly. I kid, of course. Long live my Kurdish comrades!) That said I can kind of grasp why he wouldn't do so, as this book is clearly envisioned as an example of the Turkish people coming together to repeal an ancient and foreign threat and Ali Riza might argue with me that his life showed that no, he couldn't count on people like the Kurds, Jews, or even Turks in other lands rising up in solidarity with his own people against threats but would be vastly more worried about such folks working with foreigners against him and his own. That said I wouldn't call the book xenophobic; Ali Riza goes to pains to show the Christian peasants of Romania trying to provide Azmi Bey (Jon Harker's Turkish doppelganger) means to protect himself from Dracula even when that means taking on risks to do so. Furthermore, Dracula isn't depicted as a Romanian hero here but as a danger to the Romanian people even when he was alive. A vile tyrant that the Ottoman Empire removed at great costs to itself for the profit of Turk and Romanian alike, at least according to Ali Riza. So Ali Riza to me at least seems to believe that there is a common humanity that people can work together on but perhaps that recent events have shown that the Turks can really only count on themselves for protection. Or I could be reading too much into things, sometimes blue walls are just meant to symbolize that the walls are blue and have no deeper meaning.

That said, Ali Riza does go all-in on the historical aspect of this, with his characters repeatedly painting their conflict against Dracula as the continuation of an old war and the final act in a struggle between the Turkish people and Dracula as an individual, who was Vlad Tepes. He has Dr. Resuhi discuss some of Dracula's real-world atrocities, such as staking captives and nailing the turbans to the heads of ambassadors. I have to admit, I rolled my eyes a bit since Dracula learned to stake people from the Ottomans in the first place (Shh. Just sleep now, the Ottoman Empire was kind and glorious. Dream….{I can see arguments for glorious but kind? Empires do not do kind} Shhhhh. Don’t be a “Mountain Turk” sympathizer. I kid of course. Shout out to my comrades in the YPG.). I find it interesting that he is so careful to make clear that he doesn't see Dracula as a legitimate representative of any rival nation or people. Just as a singular monster to be killed. This may be why he cut out Dracula's flight and made sure that Azmi Bey had no interaction with any of Dracula's human servants or followers, unlike Jon Harker. That said I found the ending that Ali Riza went with, where they just happen on Dracula asleep in the second house they raid and Major Turan Bey lops his head off with an ax. So in this version Dracula never attacks Guzen, Azmi Bey's betrothed, and later wife and they don't have to deal with that whole complicated issue. I also feel that kinda lessens the stakes of the conflict, no pun intended. Dracula's attack on Mina was a ruthless and arguably brilliant action that heightened the intensity of the battle between him and his hunters showing them that he would strike them where they were most vulnerable. This Dracula does kill poor Sadan but then never makes any real moves against the hunters until they find and kill him. Reducing his menace considerably. For that matter, Dracula is much reduced in this book, here he has no mastery over human subjects, displays few of the powers of the original novel, and is often referred to as a coward. I’ve got to point out that cheapening your main villain only reduces the stature of your heroes. Your heroes are only as mighty as the perils they overcome, after all. Frankly, the victory just feels to easy here.

There were things that were interesting to me, such as switching out Christian symbols for verses of the Quran which repeal the undead and I would have liked to see more use of Islamic mysticism or symbolism. I was also glad to see the change to Istanbul and wish that Ali Riza would have used the story to explore the city for us some more. As it stands though, this book is a pale shadow of the original and its primary use seems to be as a moral lesson on the value of Turkish unity. I suppose that can be expanded to the idea of unity in general but Ali Riza, for understandable reasons, was very focused on the need for his own people to stand together in a world that must have felt very hostile to him. The book was turned into a Turkish movie in 1953, with even more changes made. Sadly I haven't had time to watch that movie but if anyone has and would like to leave us a review please feel free to do so. As for Dracula in Istanbul: The Unauthorized Version of the Gothic Classic By Ali Rıza Seyfioğlu, I have to give it a D+. Most of the changes are frankly for the worse and I was left feeling that I would have a better time reading the original novel again. Hopefully, next week when we hit Powers of Darkness we'll have a better showing.

This has been an installment in Fangsgiving, a month long look at Dracula literature. This was voted on and made possible by our ever-wise patrons. If you would like a vote on theme months and upcoming reviews, join us at https://www.patreon.com/frigidreads Where your voice can be heard for as little as a 1$ a month! Join us on Sunday for a look at the first season of Castlevania, the Netflix series! Next week at long last we venture forth against the storied Powers of Darkness! Until then, stay safe and Keep Reading!