Today I finished reading Dracula. To be honest, I was by no means intimidated by the thrilling and lurid details of the vampire, but in quite another way, I could not help but think that the "Thing" must had its own soul. Of course, the novel is fraught with contemporary social conventions, class structure, and religious value; to use the word "soul" is to risk sounding insensitive and out of context. The sentiments generated in me were not pity or sympathy; the author had carefully prevented that through clever plotting and style. The epistles compiled included journals, diaries, memorandums and phonographs, which, personal and realistic as they may seem, actually take the edge off the horrors of the whole event; the reason is simple: compared to a narrative organized on a simple, one-dimension timeline, the stories are related in a retrospective way because journals are always written AFTER things occur. The novel also constantly shifts the point of view, which certainly adds much to complete the whole picture and the rarely keeps the reader in the dark. The overall style is consistent, though; the characters are always restrained and objective. We cannot learn about the vampire through the direct experiences of a journal-keeper either, for the victim does not keep entries. In fact, I think the part with the most suspense are the first entries by Jonathan when he is imprisoned in Castle Dracula. In the latter part of the novel, things clearly go the heroes' way: the main characters, Mina and Jonathan Harker, Lord Godalming, Dr. Van Helsing, Dr. Seward, and the only one who died, Quincey Morris, unite and systematically analyze the weaknesses their common nemesis. They are heroes in every sense of the term: resolute, calm, helpful, pious, resourceful, unflinching... They also represent the most powerful class of society.

I am puzzled by why the doctor says that Dracula has a "child brain". According to his theory (psychoanalysis?), Dracula is persistently experimenting with new ways to do things, but only to achieve his own ends; that is to say, he is selfish. He is cunning in his own way, but you cannot expect him to know others well or think from others' standpoint. Perhaps that works to his destruction? I don't know. I guess that's not the point; Dracula only directly speaks on this subject once, that is, when he sucks the blood of Mina. I wish the character of Dracula had not been as flat as his enemies.