Powers of Darkness: The Lost Version of Dracula
Bram Stoker and Valdimar Asundsson
In 1899 a Swedish newspaper, named Dagen (the Day) published a serialized variant of Dracula that ran from June 10, 1899, to February 7, 1900. A shortened version also ran in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladets Halfvecko-Upplaga (Evening Paper's Half Weekly) starting from August 16 1899 to March 31, 1900. Now, these papers were owned by the same publisher and had the same editor. On top of that, The Dagen was published daily for the people of Stockholm, while Aftonbladets Halfvecko-Upplaga was published twice a week for more rural audiences so there was little chance of a conflict between them. That said the two versions would go on to very different fates. The longer Dagen version would be reprinted in Tip Top magazine, a Swedish publication in 1916, and then largely forgotten until the topic of today's review surfaced. The abridged Aftronbladet version, however, would fall into the hands of Valdimar Asundsson (My God. This is gonna be so bad. Shields up!).
Valdimar Asundsson was born in 1852 in the north of Iceland. He never attended high school or university; despite that he taught himself English, German, French, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish (That is actually pretty impressive. Note that schooling back then was non-compulsory and often not free. However, there wasn’t much to do in leisure time but read so…). He eventually became a teacher and wrote a grammar book for the Icelandic language. He also became a noted expert in the Icelandic sagas, creating a popular edition of those sagas that weighed in at 38 volumes. It was on the strength of these honestly admirable achievements that Asundsson became an adviser to the Albingi, the Icelandic parliament in regards to medieval writing (which at the time had to be referred to in regards to things like property boundaries, etc [Iceland is fucking weird like that.]). In 1884 he founded the magazine Fjallkonan (Lady of the Mountain) it would become a leading publication with over 2000 subscribers. In 1888 he married Briet Bjarnheoindottir, who herself was a remarkable woman being one of Iceland's first women's rights activists and founder of the first Icelandic women's magazine Kvennabladid. She was also a teacher and a member of the Reykjavik city council (Niiiice!). In 1890, they bought a two-story house in one of the more fashionable districts of Reykjavik, soon after their daughter Laufey (who would grow up to become the first woman to enroll in an Icelandic university) was born, with a son named Hedinn born in 1892. They got a good deal on the house with mortgage payments not having to be made until 1900 which might explain what happened with Powers of Darkness. The first edition appeared in August 1901 with no mention of the Swedish version, published in book form, and episodic form in Fjallkonan.
The Icelandic version was very similar to the version in Aftonbladet, although it was cut down even more. No mention was made of this by Asundsson, presenting himself as a translator for Bram Stoker. It is unknown if Asundsson ever had contact with Stoker (although not impossible, it is entirely possible Stoker knew about this and even approved but it's also possible he was completely ignorant [It is also possible, given Stoker, that he knew Bram Stoker. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself!]). This gives the book an air of piracy, by translating it into Icelandic without making any deals, Assundsson would be able to keep the proceeds and cover his growing expenses (Only the air of piracy? Arrgh me hearties!). Ironically an issue that the Stoker family was dealing with at the same time. Not that the Swedish versions are entirely without sin, as parts of the story and prefaces would be found to match the memoirs of Lutheran pastor Bernhard Wadstorm. A Swedish pastor who relocated to England in 1788 and became a leading figure in the abolition movement. Publishing reports and engravings of the conditions on slave ships and the general crimes being conducted against the African peoples of the time. It should be something to consider that a mere factual report of how African slaves were treated and what they went through to be shipped to the new world was enough to incite a good number of Britons and others into becoming opposed entirely to slavery (Kinda highlights the moral decrepitude of the Confederacy and in fact, the United States generally at the time, doesn’t it? {Abolitionism grew in the US due to books written by the slaves factually reporting what it was like to be a slave. The Confederate states were so terrified of these books that they banned them. It was bluntly easier for the British because their paychecks didn’t rest on slavery}). But this is a book review, not a reviewer preaches about the evils of slavery review (But it could be… Hell, I could rail about the evils of wage-slavery...) so back to our novel. Before this came to light, many believed that Powers of Darkness was an earlier version of Dracula, one written before Victorian censors got hold of it. That said this still isn't impossible as a lot in this story matches the notes and half-formed written ideas we've found of Bram Stoker’s. Powers of Darkness could be a weird blend of an earlier Dracula, a Swedish Pastor's memoirs, and an Icelandic scholar's piracy (Which would be really cool.). Or it could be just another bootleg, either way, the possibilities and lack of surety give the novel an air of mystery that the more I read about, the more I knew I had to get my grubby paws on it and share it with you, dear readers. So this book was the genesis of the idea of fangsgiving, which was duly approved and supported by our ever-wise patrons (And I for one will follow the collective wisdom of the Soviet of Patrons Deputies. {We’ve talked about this, our patrons aren’t a soviet.} Yet.). Let us have it then shall we?
The vast majority of the book takes place in Castle Dracula and is told in the same epistolary style as the original book. In this case, however, we only get a single viewpoint character. That of Thomas Harker the solicitor sent to that remote corner of the Carpathian Mountains that provided our reigning Prince of Darkness his first and final fastness. Much like Jon before him, Thomas is here to finalize a real estate deal and is confused at how the local people react to being asked about Count Dracula. This confusion makes sense because it's not normal to claim you don't know anything about a guy while practically pissing yourself in fear at the mention of his very name (There are times and conditions where it happens though.). Although I will note to my readers that in and of itself should give you valuable information about the person in question (Yes, and that information means you should turn around and run back the way you came. This has been your periodic edition of How To Be Genre Savvy with your comrade, Comrade Tortoise). The trip to the castle is unchanged. Harker is given a crucifix and people do their best to give him defenses and talk him out of going but Thomas being a good Victorian Gentleman is here to do a job and won't be dissuaded by the superstitious fears of the quaint but pleasant natives. Although he soon comes to realize that maybe when you're in a strange country and the people who live there tell you something is super dangerous? You should listen to them! (How forward-thinking of this Victorian man! Too bad it comes too late right?) It is once we are inside the castle that the story changes and expands.
The Castle in Powers of Darkness is vaster and more populated than the one in Dracula proper. There's the appearance of a deaf-mute housekeeper that does most of the actual housework and although the number of brides is reduced from three to one, the bride we see in Powers of Darkness is a powerful woman with her own agenda and a much greater effect on the plot (Yaaasss! I think the Dracula series on Netflix was probably inspired by this to an extent.{really wish we could have fit it in this month… Actually, idea…}). A blue-eyed blond with the kind of beauty that can stop hearts, she is also a supernatural predator, who can stop your heart in a much more brutal and literal manner. Throughout the story, she stalks Harker, slowly drawing him out to investigate the castle, solve the mysteries within, and expose himself to the risks of those mysteries. She also works to seduce him, to the point that he has to struggle to keep his mind off of her and only barely succeeds at times. Even then it's only due to his thoughts of his fiance Wilma and the crucifix around his neck. We're not given much about this woman, we're not sure if she's a loyal servant (if she is, why does she push Harker to uncover so many of the villain's secrets? Why does she help him lie and hide things from Dracula?) a prisoner in her own right (then why does she seem able to move about freely? [Said Dracula series has it that the castle itself is a labyrinth. A prison without locks.]) or a possible ally (why is she trying to drain him dry then?). Dracula will claim to Harker that she is a kinswoman who was driven mad in her youth (Which might also be true?), believing herself to be her great grandmother. Which is why she dresses like a woman from the Napoleonic era. However, he'll also tell Harker a story about a woman who looks a lot like the bride, claiming her as a powerful member of the Dracula clan, who went out into the world by marrying a minor nobleman. Dracula claims that marrying her was the man's main claim to fame and it's her name that is the only reason this family is remembered (Could also be true. Or it could be gaslighting. Remember, immortal being. Youth is relative.). This could be an underhanded reference to Elizabeth Bathory, a real-life person who due to actually bathing people's blood keeps getting pulled into the Dracula legend (She bathed in the blood of virgins to maintain her youth, you see. She ended up locked up in a very comfortable oubliette, the only human contact she got during imprisonment was being fed.). Of course, he also states this ancestor then moved to France and set the hearts of half the empire aflame, dallying with royalty and even higher before returning home out of boredom and in her old age still being one of the most beautiful women in the world married a kinsman. She got bored of that though and started cheating on her latest husband. Who in response arranged her lover's suicide and then killed her.
It's here that Dracula shows some interesting stances on the matter of martial fealty. He looks down on the lady's husband, stating that as long as the spouse receives all due respect and all duties of marriage are met, that taking other sexual partners should at best be a minor matter (This was normal at the time. {depending on the class and beliefs of the people involved}). This is combined with Dracula preaching an ideology of the strong ruling as they see fit and the weak contenting themselves with following orders and directions (Very contemporary for his… original time.). Dracula, unlike Bram's version, openly holds democracy in naked contempt and states it can only lead to ruin because the masses aren't fit to rule themselves (Fuck around and find out.). Bram's Dracula was pretty apolitical. Now, the audience of the book is supposed to condemn this and see Dracula as an aberration, someone clearly against the values of Victorian England and the West as represented by Thomas Harker. However to those of us who know how the upper classes of the Victorian era actually lived... Dracula comes across as a member of that class who simply is saying the quiet part out loud (Also true. Honestly, the bourgeoisie think this way today. Which is why they must be removed from power.). The Victorians may have presented a publicly prudish and stuffy front in public but once you get into their private writings, they make our society look like a collection of innocent virgins trading first kisses in our parent's gardens (Dear God yes. They were sick fucks. One of the first things cameras and especially movie cameras were used for was porn, and they weren’t above snuff.). On top of that, the whole Victorian world turned on the idea of the strong ruling the weak, that's how imperialism worked! This is without even getting into the frenzied confrontations taking place over the rights of middle and lower class people in the European and American states that were taking place at the time, which many reacted to by preaching a dogma of Social Darwinism! (Which is just a precursor to fascism. It too must be destroyed.) Now Harker is a solid member of the middle class, who for the most part did avoid the hedonism of the upper classes, if for no other reason than they couldn't afford it. As a middle-class lawyer, Harker is also a member of the groups that Dracula wants to suppress. So this Dracula becomes almost an avatar for a reactionary upper class (Send him to a fucking Gulag. It’s ten AM in Russia, motherfucker! {Sorry folks this is an inside joke} From a combined Vampire/Mage game. Do the math.) seeking to suppress reform and overturn any restraint on their behavior, and openly raging at the idea that there should be anything between the achievement of their immediate desires and reality but their own wills. If my readers will forgive me for being blunt, this Dracula frankly is a more fitting villain for our own time and place than the classic one. A Dracula declares that there are two kinds of people, one that is bound by the law but not protected by it. Another that is protected by the law but not bound by it in any way. A Dracula who believes that not only does he have the right to prey on us but would tell us that the elites of our society have the right to prey on us as well declaring it to be Law and Order (There is already one law for the rich and another for the poor, we all know it. One law for us, another for the fucking cops. One law for the left, another for the reactionary.). The fact that he also keeps a cult of degenerate beastmen who may be his inbred relatives in the basement that practices human sacrifice doesn't even merit surprise at this point but a muttered: “Of bloody course he is!”.
The book however goes drastically downhill once Harker escapes from the castle. Instead of sticking to the epistolary format, the rest of the story is told briefly with each chapter being more of an outline told by an omnipresent narrator. This leaves you with the feeling that the writer just kinda ran out of gas halfway through the story! So we barely spend any time with Wilma (who is Mina) or the other characters (This is a real disappointment. There was such potential!). Many interesting ideas are presented, such as Dracula bringing together a secret society of upper-class people for some unknown goal and taking over Seward's asylum, eventually driving him mad (Poor Dr. Seward.). What's even more interesting is the hints at the expanded role for Lucy, by having her interact with a group of Tartars/Roma/wandering mystic people who start to show her the rudiments of sorcery and tell her that she has gifts (Sorcery is always fun!). Which would give us a reason why Dracula targeted her in the first place, either out of a desire to own such a person or to destroy a possible threat in its infancy. Quincy Morris is also hinted to have an expanded role, by performing thrilling heroics, like infiltrating Dracula's asylum and rescuing Dr. Seward (Badass {They fucking handle it in 3 sentences. I WAS FUCKING ROBBED!}). Although Van Helsing and Wilma seem to play greatly reduced parts in the story, which I'm not entirely thrilled with. What drives me utterly frothing mad here though is all of this is just sort blandly told, in an ‘Oh Yeah, this other stuff happened I guess’ tone. The wrap out is in and of itself entirely disappointing as well, since Dracula is slain in London and the society he built isn't dealt with, it just sorta... sloughs apart without him. I mean what is with writers and skipping the chase throughout Europe back to Castle Dracula!?! For fuck sakes people, it's a chase sequence, not a poisoned chalice! I mean if the public put half as much effort into following health directives as these writers put into avoiding going back to Castle Dracula we would have ended the COVID epidemic in fucking JUNE! (Woah there comrade, tone it down a little. Besides, the public is bimodally distributed when it comes to following health directives.).
Right. Back to reviewing. Sorry. So I enjoyed reading at least 2/3rds of this book. When we're in Castle Dracula, the suspense is high, the menace and mystery spills from the page and you're drawn into trying to find out what wickedness lurks in the halls and tunnels of this ancient fortress of supernatural peril. Thomas, while a touch stiff, makes for a completely believable and sympathetic viewpoint character, clearly terrified of his situation but steady and brave enough to do something about it. I like that (Yeah, that’s actually a believable person.). I like the care and slow steady unspooling of secrets, the tenseness of being stalked by a person who may be an ally or just a predator playing some bizarre game with her meal. I like the build-up to Harker's decision to escape the castle at all costs as he grimly plays out his ever-shrinking options (Poor bastard.). This is balanced by the utter and complete disappointment and simmering rage I feel at the second part of the novel. There are so many good ideas, characters, and plot points introduced here that are plopped out with a shrug and a meh by a narrator who gives us all the emotional investment of your overly medicated aunt explaining what her least favorite child does for a living (...Ouch.). Look, do it badly, do it well but invest yourself in it damn it, or don't bother writing the story at fucking all! It does leave me wondering just what happened in the Swedish Dagen version that all of this is supposed to be based on? If I could give you two grades for this story I would give the first part an A- and the second part a D-. However, one story, one grade. Which means that... I'm giving Valdimar Asundsson's version of Powers of Darkness a C. It's full of ideas and characters that are worth a read but falls flat on its face when it comes time to bring everything together into a climax and land this turkey.
So this will be the last book for this year's Fangsgiving, whether or not Fangsgiving returns next year will be a decision by our ever-wise patrons. If that's a decision-making process that you'd like a voice in, consider joining us at Frigid Reads is creating book reviews, book discussion | Patreon you get a vote for a dollar a month in future reviews and themes. The November poll is still open! That said, Fangsgiving isn't over, join us tomorrow for Castlevania Season II and Sunday for Castlevania Season III. Until then, stay safe and Keep Reading!
Red text is your editor Dr. Ben Allen
Black text is your reviewer Garvin Anders
In 1899 a Swedish newspaper, named Dagen (the Day) published a serialized variant of Dracula that ran from June 10, 1899, to February 7, 1900. A shortened version also ran in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladets Halfvecko-Upplaga (Evening Paper's Half Weekly) starting from August 16 1899 to March 31, 1900. Now, these papers were owned by the same publisher and had the same editor. On top of that, The Dagen was published daily for the people of Stockholm, while Aftonbladets Halfvecko-Upplaga was published twice a week for more rural audiences so there was little chance of a conflict between them. That said the two versions would go on to very different fates. The longer Dagen version would be reprinted in Tip Top magazine, a Swedish publication in 1916, and then largely forgotten until the topic of today's review surfaced. The abridged Aftronbladet version, however, would fall into the hands of Valdimar Asundsson (My God. This is gonna be so bad. Shields up!).
Valdimar Asundsson was born in 1852 in the north of Iceland. He never attended high school or university; despite that he taught himself English, German, French, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish (That is actually pretty impressive. Note that schooling back then was non-compulsory and often not free. However, there wasn’t much to do in leisure time but read so…). He eventually became a teacher and wrote a grammar book for the Icelandic language. He also became a noted expert in the Icelandic sagas, creating a popular edition of those sagas that weighed in at 38 volumes. It was on the strength of these honestly admirable achievements that Asundsson became an adviser to the Albingi, the Icelandic parliament in regards to medieval writing (which at the time had to be referred to in regards to things like property boundaries, etc [Iceland is fucking weird like that.]). In 1884 he founded the magazine Fjallkonan (Lady of the Mountain) it would become a leading publication with over 2000 subscribers. In 1888 he married Briet Bjarnheoindottir, who herself was a remarkable woman being one of Iceland's first women's rights activists and founder of the first Icelandic women's magazine Kvennabladid. She was also a teacher and a member of the Reykjavik city council (Niiiice!). In 1890, they bought a two-story house in one of the more fashionable districts of Reykjavik, soon after their daughter Laufey (who would grow up to become the first woman to enroll in an Icelandic university) was born, with a son named Hedinn born in 1892. They got a good deal on the house with mortgage payments not having to be made until 1900 which might explain what happened with Powers of Darkness. The first edition appeared in August 1901 with no mention of the Swedish version, published in book form, and episodic form in Fjallkonan.
The Icelandic version was very similar to the version in Aftonbladet, although it was cut down even more. No mention was made of this by Asundsson, presenting himself as a translator for Bram Stoker. It is unknown if Asundsson ever had contact with Stoker (although not impossible, it is entirely possible Stoker knew about this and even approved but it's also possible he was completely ignorant [It is also possible, given Stoker, that he knew Bram Stoker. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself!]). This gives the book an air of piracy, by translating it into Icelandic without making any deals, Assundsson would be able to keep the proceeds and cover his growing expenses (Only the air of piracy? Arrgh me hearties!). Ironically an issue that the Stoker family was dealing with at the same time. Not that the Swedish versions are entirely without sin, as parts of the story and prefaces would be found to match the memoirs of Lutheran pastor Bernhard Wadstorm. A Swedish pastor who relocated to England in 1788 and became a leading figure in the abolition movement. Publishing reports and engravings of the conditions on slave ships and the general crimes being conducted against the African peoples of the time. It should be something to consider that a mere factual report of how African slaves were treated and what they went through to be shipped to the new world was enough to incite a good number of Britons and others into becoming opposed entirely to slavery (Kinda highlights the moral decrepitude of the Confederacy and in fact, the United States generally at the time, doesn’t it? {Abolitionism grew in the US due to books written by the slaves factually reporting what it was like to be a slave. The Confederate states were so terrified of these books that they banned them. It was bluntly easier for the British because their paychecks didn’t rest on slavery}). But this is a book review, not a reviewer preaches about the evils of slavery review (But it could be… Hell, I could rail about the evils of wage-slavery...) so back to our novel. Before this came to light, many believed that Powers of Darkness was an earlier version of Dracula, one written before Victorian censors got hold of it. That said this still isn't impossible as a lot in this story matches the notes and half-formed written ideas we've found of Bram Stoker’s. Powers of Darkness could be a weird blend of an earlier Dracula, a Swedish Pastor's memoirs, and an Icelandic scholar's piracy (Which would be really cool.). Or it could be just another bootleg, either way, the possibilities and lack of surety give the novel an air of mystery that the more I read about, the more I knew I had to get my grubby paws on it and share it with you, dear readers. So this book was the genesis of the idea of fangsgiving, which was duly approved and supported by our ever-wise patrons (And I for one will follow the collective wisdom of the Soviet of Patrons Deputies. {We’ve talked about this, our patrons aren’t a soviet.} Yet.). Let us have it then shall we?
The vast majority of the book takes place in Castle Dracula and is told in the same epistolary style as the original book. In this case, however, we only get a single viewpoint character. That of Thomas Harker the solicitor sent to that remote corner of the Carpathian Mountains that provided our reigning Prince of Darkness his first and final fastness. Much like Jon before him, Thomas is here to finalize a real estate deal and is confused at how the local people react to being asked about Count Dracula. This confusion makes sense because it's not normal to claim you don't know anything about a guy while practically pissing yourself in fear at the mention of his very name (There are times and conditions where it happens though.). Although I will note to my readers that in and of itself should give you valuable information about the person in question (Yes, and that information means you should turn around and run back the way you came. This has been your periodic edition of How To Be Genre Savvy with your comrade, Comrade Tortoise). The trip to the castle is unchanged. Harker is given a crucifix and people do their best to give him defenses and talk him out of going but Thomas being a good Victorian Gentleman is here to do a job and won't be dissuaded by the superstitious fears of the quaint but pleasant natives. Although he soon comes to realize that maybe when you're in a strange country and the people who live there tell you something is super dangerous? You should listen to them! (How forward-thinking of this Victorian man! Too bad it comes too late right?) It is once we are inside the castle that the story changes and expands.
The Castle in Powers of Darkness is vaster and more populated than the one in Dracula proper. There's the appearance of a deaf-mute housekeeper that does most of the actual housework and although the number of brides is reduced from three to one, the bride we see in Powers of Darkness is a powerful woman with her own agenda and a much greater effect on the plot (Yaaasss! I think the Dracula series on Netflix was probably inspired by this to an extent.{really wish we could have fit it in this month… Actually, idea…}). A blue-eyed blond with the kind of beauty that can stop hearts, she is also a supernatural predator, who can stop your heart in a much more brutal and literal manner. Throughout the story, she stalks Harker, slowly drawing him out to investigate the castle, solve the mysteries within, and expose himself to the risks of those mysteries. She also works to seduce him, to the point that he has to struggle to keep his mind off of her and only barely succeeds at times. Even then it's only due to his thoughts of his fiance Wilma and the crucifix around his neck. We're not given much about this woman, we're not sure if she's a loyal servant (if she is, why does she push Harker to uncover so many of the villain's secrets? Why does she help him lie and hide things from Dracula?) a prisoner in her own right (then why does she seem able to move about freely? [Said Dracula series has it that the castle itself is a labyrinth. A prison without locks.]) or a possible ally (why is she trying to drain him dry then?). Dracula will claim to Harker that she is a kinswoman who was driven mad in her youth (Which might also be true?), believing herself to be her great grandmother. Which is why she dresses like a woman from the Napoleonic era. However, he'll also tell Harker a story about a woman who looks a lot like the bride, claiming her as a powerful member of the Dracula clan, who went out into the world by marrying a minor nobleman. Dracula claims that marrying her was the man's main claim to fame and it's her name that is the only reason this family is remembered (Could also be true. Or it could be gaslighting. Remember, immortal being. Youth is relative.). This could be an underhanded reference to Elizabeth Bathory, a real-life person who due to actually bathing people's blood keeps getting pulled into the Dracula legend (She bathed in the blood of virgins to maintain her youth, you see. She ended up locked up in a very comfortable oubliette, the only human contact she got during imprisonment was being fed.). Of course, he also states this ancestor then moved to France and set the hearts of half the empire aflame, dallying with royalty and even higher before returning home out of boredom and in her old age still being one of the most beautiful women in the world married a kinsman. She got bored of that though and started cheating on her latest husband. Who in response arranged her lover's suicide and then killed her.
It's here that Dracula shows some interesting stances on the matter of martial fealty. He looks down on the lady's husband, stating that as long as the spouse receives all due respect and all duties of marriage are met, that taking other sexual partners should at best be a minor matter (This was normal at the time. {depending on the class and beliefs of the people involved}). This is combined with Dracula preaching an ideology of the strong ruling as they see fit and the weak contenting themselves with following orders and directions (Very contemporary for his… original time.). Dracula, unlike Bram's version, openly holds democracy in naked contempt and states it can only lead to ruin because the masses aren't fit to rule themselves (Fuck around and find out.). Bram's Dracula was pretty apolitical. Now, the audience of the book is supposed to condemn this and see Dracula as an aberration, someone clearly against the values of Victorian England and the West as represented by Thomas Harker. However to those of us who know how the upper classes of the Victorian era actually lived... Dracula comes across as a member of that class who simply is saying the quiet part out loud (Also true. Honestly, the bourgeoisie think this way today. Which is why they must be removed from power.). The Victorians may have presented a publicly prudish and stuffy front in public but once you get into their private writings, they make our society look like a collection of innocent virgins trading first kisses in our parent's gardens (Dear God yes. They were sick fucks. One of the first things cameras and especially movie cameras were used for was porn, and they weren’t above snuff.). On top of that, the whole Victorian world turned on the idea of the strong ruling the weak, that's how imperialism worked! This is without even getting into the frenzied confrontations taking place over the rights of middle and lower class people in the European and American states that were taking place at the time, which many reacted to by preaching a dogma of Social Darwinism! (Which is just a precursor to fascism. It too must be destroyed.) Now Harker is a solid member of the middle class, who for the most part did avoid the hedonism of the upper classes, if for no other reason than they couldn't afford it. As a middle-class lawyer, Harker is also a member of the groups that Dracula wants to suppress. So this Dracula becomes almost an avatar for a reactionary upper class (Send him to a fucking Gulag. It’s ten AM in Russia, motherfucker! {Sorry folks this is an inside joke} From a combined Vampire/Mage game. Do the math.) seeking to suppress reform and overturn any restraint on their behavior, and openly raging at the idea that there should be anything between the achievement of their immediate desires and reality but their own wills. If my readers will forgive me for being blunt, this Dracula frankly is a more fitting villain for our own time and place than the classic one. A Dracula declares that there are two kinds of people, one that is bound by the law but not protected by it. Another that is protected by the law but not bound by it in any way. A Dracula who believes that not only does he have the right to prey on us but would tell us that the elites of our society have the right to prey on us as well declaring it to be Law and Order (There is already one law for the rich and another for the poor, we all know it. One law for us, another for the fucking cops. One law for the left, another for the reactionary.). The fact that he also keeps a cult of degenerate beastmen who may be his inbred relatives in the basement that practices human sacrifice doesn't even merit surprise at this point but a muttered: “Of bloody course he is!”.
The book however goes drastically downhill once Harker escapes from the castle. Instead of sticking to the epistolary format, the rest of the story is told briefly with each chapter being more of an outline told by an omnipresent narrator. This leaves you with the feeling that the writer just kinda ran out of gas halfway through the story! So we barely spend any time with Wilma (who is Mina) or the other characters (This is a real disappointment. There was such potential!). Many interesting ideas are presented, such as Dracula bringing together a secret society of upper-class people for some unknown goal and taking over Seward's asylum, eventually driving him mad (Poor Dr. Seward.). What's even more interesting is the hints at the expanded role for Lucy, by having her interact with a group of Tartars/Roma/wandering mystic people who start to show her the rudiments of sorcery and tell her that she has gifts (Sorcery is always fun!). Which would give us a reason why Dracula targeted her in the first place, either out of a desire to own such a person or to destroy a possible threat in its infancy. Quincy Morris is also hinted to have an expanded role, by performing thrilling heroics, like infiltrating Dracula's asylum and rescuing Dr. Seward (Badass {They fucking handle it in 3 sentences. I WAS FUCKING ROBBED!}). Although Van Helsing and Wilma seem to play greatly reduced parts in the story, which I'm not entirely thrilled with. What drives me utterly frothing mad here though is all of this is just sort blandly told, in an ‘Oh Yeah, this other stuff happened I guess’ tone. The wrap out is in and of itself entirely disappointing as well, since Dracula is slain in London and the society he built isn't dealt with, it just sorta... sloughs apart without him. I mean what is with writers and skipping the chase throughout Europe back to Castle Dracula!?! For fuck sakes people, it's a chase sequence, not a poisoned chalice! I mean if the public put half as much effort into following health directives as these writers put into avoiding going back to Castle Dracula we would have ended the COVID epidemic in fucking JUNE! (Woah there comrade, tone it down a little. Besides, the public is bimodally distributed when it comes to following health directives.).
Right. Back to reviewing. Sorry. So I enjoyed reading at least 2/3rds of this book. When we're in Castle Dracula, the suspense is high, the menace and mystery spills from the page and you're drawn into trying to find out what wickedness lurks in the halls and tunnels of this ancient fortress of supernatural peril. Thomas, while a touch stiff, makes for a completely believable and sympathetic viewpoint character, clearly terrified of his situation but steady and brave enough to do something about it. I like that (Yeah, that’s actually a believable person.). I like the care and slow steady unspooling of secrets, the tenseness of being stalked by a person who may be an ally or just a predator playing some bizarre game with her meal. I like the build-up to Harker's decision to escape the castle at all costs as he grimly plays out his ever-shrinking options (Poor bastard.). This is balanced by the utter and complete disappointment and simmering rage I feel at the second part of the novel. There are so many good ideas, characters, and plot points introduced here that are plopped out with a shrug and a meh by a narrator who gives us all the emotional investment of your overly medicated aunt explaining what her least favorite child does for a living (...Ouch.). Look, do it badly, do it well but invest yourself in it damn it, or don't bother writing the story at fucking all! It does leave me wondering just what happened in the Swedish Dagen version that all of this is supposed to be based on? If I could give you two grades for this story I would give the first part an A- and the second part a D-. However, one story, one grade. Which means that... I'm giving Valdimar Asundsson's version of Powers of Darkness a C. It's full of ideas and characters that are worth a read but falls flat on its face when it comes time to bring everything together into a climax and land this turkey.
So this will be the last book for this year's Fangsgiving, whether or not Fangsgiving returns next year will be a decision by our ever-wise patrons. If that's a decision-making process that you'd like a voice in, consider joining us at Frigid Reads is creating book reviews, book discussion | Patreon you get a vote for a dollar a month in future reviews and themes. The November poll is still open! That said, Fangsgiving isn't over, join us tomorrow for Castlevania Season II and Sunday for Castlevania Season III. Until then, stay safe and Keep Reading!
Red text is your editor Dr. Ben Allen
Black text is your reviewer Garvin Anders
No comments:
Post a Comment