Decía The Mascherter Guardian
" Dice no poco en favor de de la capacidad del autor que, a pesar de todos sus disparates, el lector sea capaz de seguir la trama con interés hasta el final. Es, sin embargo, un error artístico llenar de horrores todo un volumen"¿Error?
Comparto alguna de las primeras criticas publicadas.
It is said of Mrs. Radcliffe that when writing her now almost forgotten romances she shut herself up in absolute seclusion, and fed upon raw beef, in order to give her work the desired atmosphere of gloom, tragedy and terror. If one had no assurance to the contrary one might well supposed that a similar method and regimen had been adopted by Mr. Bram Stoker while writing his new novel “Dracula.” In seeking for a parallel to this weird, powerful, and horrorful story our mind reverts to such tales as “The Mysteries of Udolpho,” “Frankenstein,” “Wuthering Heights,” “The Fall of the House of Usher,” and “Marjery of Quether.” But “Dracula” is even more appalling in its gloomy fascination than any one of these (The Daily Mail, 1 June 1897).
Man is no longer in dread of the monstrous and the unnatural, and although Mr. Stoker has tackled his gruesome subject with enthusiasm, the effect is more often grotesque than terrible…. The plot is too complicated for reproduction, but it says no little for the author’s power that in spite of its absurdities the reader can follow the story with interest to the end. It is, however, an artistic mistake to fill a whole volume with horrors. A touch of the mysterious, the terrible, or the supernatural is infinitely more effective and credible. (Manchester Guardian, 15 June 1897)
Me parece que tanto la novela como las películas de Drácula, excepto quizás "El baile de los vampiros" de Polansky, tienen un error. Tras tanto tiempo de vampiro lo lógico es que hubiese vampirizado a muchísima gente, directa o indirectamente, todo un ejercito de vampiros. Sobre todo cuando va a Londres.
Publicar un comentario