So, I read Carmilla. By the way, it’s the first book I’ve ever bought following a recommendation from r/books. It was pitched in a thread as a better, more progressive, LGBT friendly vampire story than Dracula, that created vampires as we know them in literature. It was a surprising review for a story from the 19th century, so when I stumbled upon it I thought I’d try it.
​
Well to start off simple, no doubt, Carmilla has a lot more LGBT representation than Dracula, if that’s an asset to you I do suggest to give Carmilla a read. You can only interpret so many ways how much time Carmilla spends caressing or necking the main character. Hard to not also attach the concept of her unholy appetite to that of lust, as in Dracula. Is it more progressive ? I… don’t think so, no. Aside from giving lesbianism the spotlight, there’s no big jump in female empowerment compared to Dracula. The wikipedia article says the book subverts the usual tropes by having helpless unproductive males, but… I mean, a guy did solve the whole problem. Laura, the main character, mostly just spends her time being sexually confused or terrified. Her entire role in the book is being victimized.
Now, the Baron (someone you can only describe as a Van Helsing-like fellow) is the deus ex machina : the dude just resolves the whole situation the moment he puts down his suitcase. He was such a pro that he even murdered the tension, everything got taken care of way too fast the moment he put on his vampire-killing apron. He even delivers an “elementary my dear Watson” speech ! It’s like the author himself goes “I don’t know man, I was writing this vampire horror story and this Blade guy just showed up”.
The initial reddit thread that recommended me the book depicted Carmilla as a sympathetic character but I didn’t see that, to be honest. She murders people continuously the whole book, all female characters. I think people get confused because she uses the main character as a plaything and doesn’t attack her straight away. Also, personally, her attitude towards Laura feels salacious, not romantic.
Anyway, if a feminist aspect is what’s sold to you by someone, take it with a grain of salt. It’s not a factor in my appreciation at least, but it’s often a point that follows discussion of the book online from what I gather.
​
In terms of writing, Dracula wins. Not sure if there’s debate around this. There’s much more suspense and the epistolary format is what really makes Dracula fun to read in my opinion. Even among the other classic monster books like Frankenstein and Jekyll&Hyde, Dracula always was the most dynamic. The “pursuit” in the last act of Dracula ramps things up a lot, whereas the ending in Carmilla is a bit too abrupt in my opinion (it’s the Baron I tell you, it’s that fucking Baron). But I’m not going to insist on comparing a novel with what is almost a short story. Both have functional prose and neither delve into nobel lit territory, that’s it. However, Carmilla was fun to read in the sense that the author nurtures the *mystery* rather than the *suspense* : who is that character that we cross only a few times and what is their link to Carmilla, was that really her mother, where did the henchmen come from and were they in on it, why do so many years pass before they meet again, what’s a dream and what isn’t etc. You still have a few questions when you reach the end. It’s a different approach but makes for good food for thought.
​
Now in regards to vampire lore, this is where it gets fun to talk about : overall I prefer the super-powers in Dracula and I like the imagery of bats (Carmilla being just a black shape when zooming around). The mind control also gets a bit more of a focus, though in Carmilla it’s more open to interpretation : is Laura being mind-controlled or is her affection genuine ? The fact that it’s less explicit makes it more interesting to think about, if a bit less overtly suspenseful than for Dracula’s brides. Either way, I enjoy the link between vampires and telepathy. Carrion Comfort was also interesting for that aspect (can’t say I recommend that book overall though).
There’s more pseudo-science in Dracula, Van Helsing’s explanations being a bit more fun to follow than the Baron’s. But, where Carmilla gets an advantage is that it depicts a “vampire bureaucracy”, which to me was super interesting. There’s a whole administration ready to file paperwork to get rid of vampires ? It’s almost as if they brought an official notary to execute vampires. Le Fanu should have expanded the concept more, I think, he only barely touches on it.
​
**In conclusion** : Carmilla is a fun short book, however I woudn’t call it a better version of Dracula. I definitely recommend it to see how the concept of vampires evolve through the ages in Ireland. Is it the creator of the modern vampire ? I don’t know, it’s the earliest vampire story I’ve read, I should still read The Vampyre by Polidori for example to compare better.
​
Anyway, anyone here read it ? what you think ?
​
​
by Dontevenwannacomment