Pictures: The New Annotated Dracula
With Everyman’s Library set to include Dracula next year, it’s a good time to look at The New Annotated Dracula which saw release from W. W. Norton last year. Coincidentally, it’s the same publishing house that released the Tom Ripley box set, and both saw release in October of 2008.
Norton has a whole series of annotated editions that cover everything from Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, to Huck Finn and Sherlock Holmes. The Sherlock Holmes set is edited by Leslie S. Klinger, who handled the Dracula release, and while quite good on some merits, there are other things that are a bit of a miss.
The book itself is probably the nicest edition of Dracula I’ve ever seen. No acid-free paper with this one, and no ribbon marker, but it’s extremely detailed and handsome as a gift copy for the collector.
It clocks in at just over 600 pages, and features multiple appendixes of bonus material, including the short story by Bram Stoker, ‘Dracula’s Guest,’ as well as sections on chronology, dates and even a Whitby glossary. In fact, there’s a whole part 2 of the book that follows even all that, plus multiple introductions and so many notes the actual text of the book can find itself rather lost with all that’s going on. The back of the dust-jacket (which is really quite beautiful) proudly proclaims 1,500 notes and hundreds of illustrations, and I have no doubt that the book lives up it’s claims.
However, the project is so ambitious that despite it’s intentions of being thoroughly comprehensive, it makes a few judgement calls that, while not bad, are tough to stomach.
On one hand, Klinger treats the project in a manner that playfully accepts the manuscript of Dracula as fact, and thus makes notations on the text as one would treat an investigative report. Because the novel is essentially epistolary in nature anyway, this can actually be quite fun to read, and it does open up some disturbing new implications within the story, particularly in regards to the character of Quincy P. Morris. But can it grow tiresome after a while? It does wear itself a little thin, and some of the comments seem a little too cheeky for their own good. My opinion is that the decision to examine the work in this manner was in fact a sound one, just one to be judged according to taste.
Which brings me to subject of being tasteful, here in regards to the loads of artwork that adorn the volume. Another deliberate decision was made to include content that celebrates the impact and the inspiration for Dracula. Meaning, you’re going to get some rumblings of things like Jack The Ripper, which is fair, but you’re also going to get mentions of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and things such as a full-page reprint of the poster for the Hollywood cult classic, ‘The Lost Boys.’
I’m mixed on this issue, because there is no getting around the fact that the volume could have been more tasteful if it only kept things Dracula-specific. The other problem is if the conscious effort has been made to show the impact of vampire lore and popularity that Dracula has inspired, it’s odd that the Castlevania video games from Konami receive no mention, despite even mentioning Dracula specifically, and it’s almost comical that Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Saga isn’t mentioned once. Seeing as how we are in the midst of a full-blown Twilight phenomenon, it almost seems absurd to make the omission (intended or not), and given that this volume was released in October of last year, the books themselves had already gained an enormous following rendering the omission glaring.
My problem here is that if you are, in fact, going to go all out, then just do it, but picking and choosing from some things versus others seems blatantly obvious, or shortsighted. It’s hard to complain about getting so much bonus material, but certain things could have been handled better, such as the last pages of the novel being graced with a wild-eyed Christopher Lee complete with erect wooden stake popping out of him; I make the argument of taste here.
Still, one would be hard-pressed to find a better edition of the classic on the market, and it may be the best edition ever released. It might also be the most complete edition released in the United States, as there has been some speculation of various manuscripts seeing print, though it may not be the first to offer the full text here in the US. Anyone who is a fan of specifically Dracula, or just classic literature in general should get this volume, as, my differences of opinion aside, when I first got the book I spent hours just breathlessly soaking up the notes, pictures and extras. It’s a good investment.
I should make note that Barnes and Noble released a gift volume of Stoker’s novel which featured illustrations by Edward Gorey, as well as some extras, and there have been countless other paperback releases of the work that take a more bare-bones approach. My previous copy was actually from Signet as a movie edition to commemorate the release of the elaborate Francis Ford Coppola directed film, ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’ from November of 1992. It featured a black and white photo-insert of stills and publicity shots from the film and an introduction by Leonard Wolf who had previously edited The Annotated Dracula.
UPDATE: I reread this and I just wanted to make it clear that I am impressed with the work Mr. Klinger has invested into this volume. My critique focuses on some aesthetic directions the book takes, but I really do think that it’s a handsome volume and that the notes are extremely detailed.
Endpapers in red.
The front image on the hardcover itself, stamped and slightly embossed.
Title page design; you can expect that kind of detailing throughout.
Stoker looks rather dashing here!
And a familiar sight.
December 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I’m very pleased that you liked the book. In fact, the manuscript was delivered almost a year before publication, when the “Twilight” books were still unpublished. There are over 50 current vampire/romance series in publication, and I couldn’t begin to mention all of them. I agree that the Castlevania series should have been noted (I’m a fan), but at least I gave a shout-out to Marv Wolfman’s “Tomb of Dracula” comics! And thanks too for the kind words regarding my little fiction of “truthfulness.” Some critics have missed the point–that it adds zest to the reading to delve into the detailed descriptions to examine the underlying reality and to explain matters that would have been self-evident to the Victorian reader. It was grand fun to research and to write!
February 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I bought a copy of this book a few months ago because I considered myself a pretty big fan of the novel, but it turned out that you have to be a much bigger fan than I am to really appreciate it. It’s so exhaustively annonated, it’s the equivalent of a Special Edition DVD with seven discs of extras. If a character so much as mentions a certain building in a certain town, let alone visits it, get ready for paragraphs (or in many cases, full pages) of notes explaining the history behind it. You’ve got to be a HUGE fan of the novel to really enjoy this kind of thing. I’m sure the defense would be that the reader can “take it or leave it,” but so many extensive notes about so many irrelevant details makes it more difficult to find what’s genuienly interesting and important.
As for Klinger treating the story as fact, I didn’t mind it at first, but it has such a nauseatingly cutesy, “wink wink” tone to it that I wanted to throw the thing out the window after the 30th note explaining that a plot hole was clearly part of the conspiracy to cover up Dracula’s survival. And does this kind of thing really belong anywhere near a book that tries so hard to be so authoritative and scholarly? Why do you need to treat the story as fact in a playful manner to “delve into the detailed descriptions to examine the underlying reality and to explain matters that would have been self-evident to the Victorian reader”?
February 17, 2010 at 6:10 am
I actually found the book to be so exhaustive at first that I found it to a little too full of info, and felt that it detracted from the story. I’ve changed my mind, however, as I’ve gone back to it time and time again for new insight into the Dracula ‘myth.’ I keep it as my collector’s edition/reference book, and tend to leaf through a tie-in paperback edition from the 1992 Coppola film when I go back to reread the original novel.
I appreciate the research that went into it, and I’ve pored over this particular edition for, what have now been, countless hours, but the notes do tend to stand out more so than the original text of the book; I do like the inclusion of Dracula’s Guest as an added appendix, though.
Thank you for your comment; I greatly appreciate it.
February 17, 2010 at 11:41 pm
“I … tend to leaf through a tie-in paperback edition from the 1992 Coppola film when I go back to reread the original novel.”
Certainly not the novelization, I hope. I was stunned to see a novelization of a movie that was advertised as being a faithful adaptation of the novel!
February 23, 2010 at 7:33 am
Good heavens, no!
It’s a copy of the novel, but it features a great gray/black ’stone’ motif of a wolfish Dracula, and it’s got the title emblazoned in red ‘blood.’ Very cool-looking, and it does include an introduction by Leonard Wolf. It’s serviceable.
I have the novelization that you’re referring to, AND actually wasted the time to read through it (I was in the sixth grade, I believe). It’s about as absurd as you can imagine.
Also: I find it fascinating that Bram Stoker’s Dracula is really Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, as based on James V. Hart’s Dracula. It’s incredible that no one has ever done a truly faithful film adaptation, though that one does seem to come closest about 30% of the time; I’ll admit that it’s fun to watch. The Murray-Harker wedding being contrasted with Lucy’s last initiation is a great scene; and seeing Gary Oldman piled on with extreme bat and wolf makeup is a fun novelty as well.
There is also one of the best pieces of music featured in that movie I’ve ever heard. It’s from the original soundtrack by Wojciech Kilar and is a track called ‘Love Remembered.’ You can download it from iTunes, and I highly recommend it; think classical sounding.
And thank-you again for your wonderful comments. They are greatly appreciated.
February 23, 2010 at 11:59 pm
“It’s incredible that no one has ever done a truly faithful film adaptation”
Believe it or not, there’s actually a mostly faithful adaptation of the book. It’s a BBC television adaptation from 1977 with Louis Jourdan as Dracula, and it may be my favorite Dracula adaptation. It’s not 100% faithful to the book, but it’s a lot more faithful than Coppola’s film. (I really like Coppola’s movie, by the way, despite the utter falsehood of its claims of being faithful to the book.) I believe there’s a small section about it in “The New Annotated Dracula,” along with a picture of Jourdan’s Dracula, but you can find more information about it online, particularly some clips on YouTube.
February 27, 2010 at 7:04 am
I actually considered ordering that one on Amazon, but it’s not at the top of my list right now. I really should get a Netflix account, but I’m kind of funny about owning my own movies.
I’m not knocking the Coppola film, as there are quite a few things that I appreciate about it, but it seems to have aged a little bit since I last saw it (on YouTube!).
I’ll check out the 1977 adaptation, though, as I was suspicious of it, but I’m glad to see a solid vote on it. I’ll let you know what I think when I pick up a copy.
Thanks again!