A Tale of Two Villains, a review by Joanna

The title suggests that this is mostly about Dracula and Voldemort, but in fact the book compares all aspects of both fictional worlds. He notes that the books were published exactly one hundred years apart, but is careful never to suggest that JK Rowling did this deliberately, or to speculate whether any of the similarities are intentional. Beginning with the characters, he shows the parallels between the works, linking amongst others, Jonathan Harker to Harry Potter, Mina Harker to Hermione, Renfrew to Wormtail, Van Helsing to Dumbledore, and of course Dracula to He Who Must Not Be Named. Cherry doesn’t limit himself to these worlds, either, expanding his thesis to include characters from Shakespeare to Star Wars to make his various points.

Part two examines the locations used in the books, geographical and specific, like castles and cemeteries – of note, this including the famous Highgate cemetery. Part three covers the themes the books share – good and evil, love and friendship, loss and death – obviously these are present in most successful novels – you could probably find just as many similarities in characters and themes in The Lord of the Rings, but part four, which explores the symbols common to both, has more specific examples – blood, immortality, scars… Certainly lots to think about. The final section was to me the least interesting, and felt like padding – somewhat irrelevant facts about all the other places outside of Britain mentioned in the books.

Overall, this was a careful, respectful and comprehensive comparison between two works which seem superficially very different. Like most people, I suspect, I had never picked up on any of the connections he exposes, but Cherry’s arguments are convincing. Is it because the traits and tropes are universal, or that Rowling’s subconscious incorporated them into her first book, or whether it was all done as a well concealed but knowing homage to the “biggest selling book in the world after the bible” (as the author claims in his introduction – neither I nor Google think this is true, although perhaps it was at the time?) There are extensive quotes to support his theories, throughout the book – some repeated in different chapters. Some of the writing is a bit garbled/odd, there are some modern phrases that seem out of place in a serious literary analysis,  and I could’ve done without the religious commentary that peppers the text, but overall I very much enjoyed this and would recommend it to any fans of the books. Thanks to NetGalley and Gaudium Publishing for the ARC.