Interview With Leslie S. Klinger

In regard to the curious incident of  Leslie S. Klinger’s extensive background in annotating fictional works of great significance, which begin with a certain detective–

Mr. Klinger’s work is an update and expansion of William S. Baring-Gould’s Annotated Sherlock Holmes, a monumental feat of scholarship, published in 1967. It was Mr. Baring-Gould’s edition, which Mr. Klinger received as a gift from his first wife in 1968, that initially sent him sliding down the rabbit hole of Sherlockiana. –New York Times, 12-30-04

–And culminate with his elucidation of one singular individual, of dubious notoriety, and ungodly nighttime habits–

In his first work since his best-selling The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, Leslie S. Klinger returns with this spectacular, lavishly illustrated homage to Bram Stoker’s Dracula. With a daring conceit, Klinger accepts Stoker’s contention that the Dracula tale is based on historical fact…employing the superb literary detective skills for which he has become famous, Klinger mines this 1897 classic for nuggets that will surprise even the most die-hard Dracula fans and introduce the vampire-prince to a new generation of readers.

–This much can be said: bring it on. And he did.

How did you come to be involved with annotating such an influential and iconic work of literature?

I so enjoyed working on the Sherlock Holmes Canon that when it was completed, I really wanted to do another book. After a lot of thought, my wife said, “What about Dracula?” It was immediately the obvious choice. Not only is it another Victorian classic, set in London contemporaneously with the Holmes stories, Dracula has gathered the same iconic magnetism that SH has. SH is the most filmed character in the history of film; Dracula is in second place. That says it all!

How does one approach annotating a classic work such as Dracula? There must be an enormous amount of material regarding it.

There is a huge body of academic work focusing on Dracula, and there have been three previous major annotated editions (hence my title). However, I wanted to take a unique approach, applying the methodology of the Sherlockian “Game.” Stoker says in the introduction to one of his editions that the narrative is based on actual documents given to him by his friends, whose names he’s changed. I wanted to analyze the narrative from the perspective of taking Stoker at his word. This meant that the academic work was of little use (although interesting and summarized in a long appendix to my book). Virtually no research has been done by scholars over the last 100 years from this viewpoint (as contrasted with SH, where 1000’s of articles have been published with this perspective), so I had to do my own research into fascinating bits of trivia–Whitby tidetables, Continental railroad schedules, the history of medicine, the geography of Roumania and England, etc. My conclusion–that Stoker was induced by Dracula himself to twist the actual historical facts to conceal his defeat of Van Helsing and the others–is presented throughout the book. However, I also present all the evidence, so the reader can laugh at my conclusion and still obtain all the scholarship.

There were also topics too long for notes that are covered in various appendices–Dracula on film, Dracula on the stage, parodies and pastiches of Dracula, the predecessors to Dracula (vampire folklore), Dracula in academia, chronology, etc.

Why is an annotated version of important literature usually more reader-involving and fascinating than just the original itself?

Any timeless book can be read on multiple levels. At the microscopic level (the annotator’s viewpoint), great books turn out to be highly accurate photographs of the culture and times in which they were written. I’m not suggesting that readers new to Dracula start with the annotations–I generally suggest that they read the story first, then come back for the notes (unless there’s something in particular that they just don’t understand). In the case of Dracula, we’re no longer conversant with Victorian culture or even Victorian English!

In addition, an important part of my scholarship was to compare the published text with three other versions, in search of clues: The notes kept by Stoker in the course of writing it, the “manuscript” (actually a typescript), owned by a private collector and long unavailable for study, and the version abridged by Stoker.

What sources for research did you use and how did you go about acquiring them?

The Stoker notes are at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia, readily accessible; the manuscript required tracking down the owner (it turned out to be Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen) and seeking permission, then traveling to Seattle to spend two days with the manuscript. I also traveled to London, to view various Dracula sites and do research at the British Library and the Wellcome Library of Medicine, as well as Transylvania, where I sought to find the locations described by the Harkers.

Any revelations concerning Bram Stoker or Dracula we should be on the lookout for in your new book?

Well, yes! Pretty shocking to come to the conclusion that the book was largely a tissue of lies! Dracula didn’t die (the vampire hunters stabbed him with steel knives, you’ll recall, when Van Helsing has admonished them that only a wooden stake will do), Harker never went to Transylvania, the Castle wasn’t (or was it?) destroyed, and Dracula himself was largely responsible for the “cover story” that was ultimately published!

I”ll assume you’ve watched some of the movies depicting Bram Stoker’s vampire. Do you have a preference for a particular actor in the role of the count? If so, why?

Jack Palance is actually my favorite, conveying youthful age (to coin a phrase) and a convincing object of fear. Christopher Lee is a close second, although the Hammer films were by and large so over the top that Lee didn’t get a fair chance.

You have also edited the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, including the novels as well as the short stories. You are also a Baker Street Irregular. I’m a big Holmes and Watson fan myself, though not as  steeped in the minute details a Sherlockian Scholar like yourself is so keen on (though I can name the person in the unframed portrait Watson admires). What is it about Doyle’s ageless detective that fascinates you?

Holmes is a combination of all that we imagine that we are or would like to be, except for the irascible, misogynistic, temperamental, drug-addicted parts. Together with Dr. Watson, however, they form the perfect combination of traits we admire–smart, always in charge, warm, steadfast, dependable, the person(s) we’d always call with any kind of problem. What fascinates me most is the fascination he exerts! Here’s a set of stories that have captivated four or five generations of readers. Wow! I wish I could write like that!

Which is your favorite Holmes story and why?

The Blue Carbuncle is my favorite–the perfect combination of pure reason and sentimentality.

Of all the actors who have portrayed Holmes, do you have a favorite?

I am very partial to Jeremy Brett, but that’s in no little part because of the care with which the early episodes were produced. Basil Rathbone could have been even better than Brett if only the material was all of the quality of Hound of the Baskervilles!

Are you a fan of other detective series? Which ones?

I’m very fond of Michael Connolly’s books, as well as Martin Cruz Smith’s Renko novels.

It is interesting you have annotated fictional works in the horror and mystery genres. Do you see any similarities between the two, either the works themselves or the genres?

I think that there’s a great deal of cross-over in terms of technique. When the SH stories and Dracula were written, the genres didn’t even exist–they were all simply thrilling stories! Dracula made it on to the Haycraft-Queen list of cornerstone mysteries. Certainly there’s a great deal of commonality between the two fanbases!

So, when Halloween rolls around, do you dress up as Sherlock Holmes or Dracula?

Hah! I generally dress up as a lawyer (suit and tie!), so that no one laughs! I have a beautiful SH-type Inverness, but being short and dumpy, I just don’t see myself pulling it off. Norton gave away fangs at Book Expo America, and I was very disappointed not to get a set! But no cape…

What are your writing and editing plans for the future?

I have several projects in the pitch stage but nothing set at this point. I have another specialized SH book out in January for hardcore fans/scholars–the annotated Apocrypha (the stories that are almost part of the SH Canon but not quite).

What is the one question you would love to be asked and what is your answer?

Is Sherlock Holmes real or fictional? The answer, of course, is YES!
(And now the same goes for Dracula!)

Second favorite: Why are you still practicing law? Answer: Do you have any idea how little writers actually make? (And I love my practice too.)