Dracula

i hate this book

A solid story that has become a classic through its many different re-imaginings, but unfortunately not because of the artful storytelling of the original. Told in the form of diary entries (even though all characters tend to talk with the chivalrous tone and length of Don Quixote), I could never stop thinking that there were many ways to write the damn thing with better form. First of all, it could have easily been half the size. It moves either tortuously slow or break-neck fast. Not to mention that the characters are stupid, something that I really can't stand. “Hmm, that girl looks really pale, just like that other girl that also looked pale and became a vampire. Perhaps I should check her neck for any marks? Nah, she's probably just tired...” You can't just write a book as a collection of diaries and never consider that people can realize things just by writing them down. In general, if anyone's interested, just read the plot summary somewhere and then go read Frankenstein, a much better book.

This book was much more frightening than Frankenstein, with a lot of blood. It was thrilling.

This one's been on my list for a very long time. Found a copy with Chris Lee reading this morning, so I had to listen. I definitely recommend.

If you read contemporary reviews of Dracula, you'll find it was critically panned by the average reader. Some of the other names of the day considered it a sleeper classic but otherwise the real cultural value of Dracula comes from its Hammer incarnations. Which is entirely understandable, as the weight of Stoker's laborious prose prevents any sort of impression to form in the reader's mind beyond the desire to sleep – or strangle the heroines for their stupidity.

In some sense I wish Dracula from the page had had more of an impact than the cinematic Dracula. The heavy mustache, the fierce Stygian features...they make for a much for evocative vampiric archetype than what we've in fact been left with.

Excelente libro, terror en estado puro; uno de los mejores clásicos que he leído.
El autor juega con el miedo a lo desconocido, que experimentan los personajes a lo largo de toda la novela. Los personajes tienen un profundo desarrollo, deleitandonos con sus miedos, sus amores, sus inseguridades y con su sed de venganza.

Until reading this book, my only knowledge of the Dracula story came from the films. While I still love some of the films (huge TCM fan), in them the character of Mina is usually diminished to that of a soft-boiled egg. But in his book, Stoker not only gives her intelligence, courage, and self-respect (as well as grace and beauty of mind), but also opportunities to use them. She is the hero of this story. Perhaps because Stoker's mother was a feminist, he saw no reason not to make Mina an active part of the story. It is well paced (although I could have done with less dialogue from Van Helsing), and he uses the landscape and scenery to evoke a perfectly creepy atmosphere. It makes for a compelling read.

For many years, I thought “Dracula” was in my read pile, whereas, it was not! One of the great things about the Great Books book club I am in is reading titles I might not normally pick up OR picking up a title I thought I had!

One of the things that is striking about “Dracula” in book form, versus the various film and stage versions we have seen, is the multitude of unreliable narrators. Every single voice, save, perhaps, the newspaper articles describing the crash of the Demeter at Whitby, is by someone who may or may not be telling the truth because they are being influenced (knowingly, in the case of Mina, or unknowingly, in the case of Lucy). “We want no proofs, we ask none to believe us!” exclaims Van Helsing in Jonathan Harker's postscript seven years after the novels main events. Yet, Mina and Jonathan's son, Quincey, is being told the stories and may the very person who has to believe his parents and parents' friends.

It is also the epistolary form, presented in journal entries, excerpts from diaries kept on phonograph, ship's logs, telegrams, and patient records that we are fed the story of Dracula's ultimate demise. While epistolary novels were nothing new by the late 1800's, the style fits the story particularly well, allowing Bram Stoker to switch points of view and build suspense in a way modern day television and movies do. It also provides a great deal of printed evidence used to analyze and organize the confusing events up to and following Lucy's untimely death.

Here, again,h is a surprise for those familiar with the screen and stage adaptations of “Dracula.” Time and again, technology, logic, and Western innovation are used to trump the Old World, the supernatural, and Eastern Europe. Shorthand, the typewriter, the phonograph, blood transfusions, and investigative techniques one expects from Scotland yard undo Dracula's attempt to take over and dominate London, as well as cutting him off from his ancestral home. Mina Harker, in particular, is lauded by other characters in the book for her incredible use of logic, organization, and mastery of productivity enhancers (shorthand, typewriting). It is only when she is suspected of being pregnant (aka newly married) or a two-way conduit to Dracula that the men keep her out of the investigation.

Fear of contagion must certainly echo the quick-spreading cholera epidemic Bram Stoker's mother described, as well as other plagues that science had not yet found a way to shield humanity from. Once infected, very little but death awaited cholera victims, much like those that either had too much blood drawn from them by vampires or who had drunk the blood of a vampire. Where does contagion come from? It must certainly be foreign and unclean, which may explain why Dracula is from Eastern Europe, an area of Europe that contemporary England found quaint, superstitious, and backwards.

The erotic and sexual overtones to Dracula come through loud and clear, from taking on new vampires both as partners sharing experiences at night in a passionate haze to creating progeny. Related is the idea that Dracula is a rich, willful member of the aristocracy; the extremely wealthy certainly had their way with local peasant women and drained the life out of the people working their lands, although not as literally as sucking blood from their necks.

One of the plot points that irked me was Dracula's behavior on the voyage from Varna to Whitby. If Dracula could endanger his continued existence by the ship crashing during the voyage, why would he kill every member of the Demeter days before landfall? During his trip back to Varna and during other travels, Dracula was able to limit his feasting. While the ship's log and related newspaper articles were thrilling to read, the behavior seemed out of character for a 400-year old who was well-read and a meticulous planner.

After both the group discussion yesterday and a wealth of supplementary materials in the Penguin Classics edition, I find myself quite happy to have finally read Bram Stoker's excellent work and hope others will, as well.

Here are the discussion questions another book club member pulled together:
1. Dracula has become a famous (or should I say infamous) character over the years. Before you read the book, what expectations did you have for Dracula? What have you seen in movies, TV shows, etc. that caused you to think the book would be this way?

2. What are the elements of vampire folklore? For example, what, according to the novel, attracts or repels a vampire? How do you kill a vampire for good? Although Stoker did not invent the mythology of the vampire, his novel firmly established the conventions of vampire fiction. Choose another novel that deals with vampires and compare it with Dracula. (Consider, for example, one of Anne Rice's vampire books or Stepanie Meyer's Twilight series.) In what ways are the novels similar? Different?

3. Like so many novels of this time period, Dracula plays into stereotypical gender roles. Were you at all bothered by the heroine-in-distress part of the plot? Did any of the characters complicate or challenge these “normal” gender roles?

a )Discuss the significance that many of the male protagonists are doctors (Dr. Seward) or men of science (Dr. Van Helsing). Why is this important to the story?

b) Discuss the roles of Lucy Westenra and Mina Harker in the novel. How are the two women similar? Different? What accounts for their differences? To what extent does the novel depend on both of these women to propel the narrative forward?

4. The vampires in Dracula seek beauty and youth as principal objects of conquest. Why do they fixate on these two ideals? Are these twin obsessions specific to the time and place of the novel, or do we still grapple with their hold over us today? Does the author provide any positive examples of aging? In the novel, how do youth and naiveté take a back seat to knowledge and experience?

5. Discuss the role of sexuality in Dracula. What does the novel suggest about sexual behavior in Victorian England?
a)Count Dracula's thirst for blood is closely tied to sexual desire. How does Mina Harker thwart his physical — and psychological — advances? How does Lucy Westenra's vulnerability affect his bodily appetites? How does Jonathan Harker fend off the female vampires who nearly prove his undoing? What conclusions does the book draw about the link between seduction and evil? Sexual purity and innocence? What are the contrasts between love and lust in Dracula? How does passion complicate efforts to hasten Count Dracula's demise?

6. Dracula pits science and reason against superstition and the occult. Are these opposing philosophies ever reconciled? Does the truth of one argue against the existence of the other? How do the two doctors, John Seward and Abraham Van Helsing, approach the matter differently? Is Seward's skepticism ever completely overcome? How does R.M. Renfield contribute to Seward's education? What is the significance of Seward's diagnosis that Renfield tries “to absorb as many lives as he can”?

7. Do you think Dracula is a religious novel? What is the significance of the role played by holy objects in warding off the vampire's damnation? Does the author mean to satirize the piety and superstition of Transylvania town folk, or to strengthen the power of their beliefs?

8. Dracula relies on journal fragments, letters, and newspaper clippings to tell its story. Why might Stoker have chosen to narrate the story in this way? Do letters and journal entries make the story seem more authentic or believable to you?

9. Stoker includes an interesting note at the very end of the book that asks his reader about truth. Although the characters have repeatedly written of the validity of this tale through facts and accurate accounts of events, the reader is now asked to take everything on good faith. Why do you think Stoker chose to end this way? How does this choice affect your trust of the characters and your experience with the book?

I seen most of the Dracula movies from the 30's to recently so I thought I'd read the book and see which movie version followed the book the best. The book was good, written in the late 18oo's it was a bit difficult to understand at times! I'm going to try and read 1 classic book each month and this was my 1st. As for the movies, I believe the 1992 version with Anthony Hopkins came the closest to the book! Great Halloween Read! David

Dracula is so much more than the vampires we mow read everywhere.

This is a re-read and this time I'm listening to the story. The voices are first-rate and thankfully they gave Mina a sensible voice.
Dracula is at the same time more melodramatic and slower paced than I recall. I understand now why the Hollywood version took ample liberties with the storyline though I much prefer Stoker's depiction of Lucy.
The story is told entirely through different characters' journals and the “voice” of Dr Van Helsing is indeed distinctive, not just in auditory terms but in word choice and sentence construction.
The ending had a very long build up and a very short climax. But the author built up the rules of vampyr very well, weaving in the many bits and pieces of local folklore and myth to start the Canon of the Vampire.
The Audible edition is excellent and brought to life the original Dracula.

4.5 stars
Van Helsin is an annoying character

~Full review on The Bent Bookworm!~Narration:The narrators for this Audible Editions version were fabulous. Each character has their own narrator for their various journal entries, letters, etc., and they were all easily distinguished from each other. I listened at 1.25% speed, which helped with the 15 hour, 28 minute length.Feels:I was mostly just very intrigued the whole way through! It was so very different than anything I've ever read. I was invested in the characters but not terribly attached, if that makes sense. I felt like I learned a lot from this novel, even though it was fiction. I learned a lot about British/European culture at that time, how they looked at the supernatural, and how they looked at women.Characters:First of all, let's get this Count Dracula straight. Dracula is not something out of True Blood or Twilight. He is not sexy. He does not sparkle. He is not emo or hurt and in need of someone to comfort and heal him. He is evil, cruel, barbaric, and intent on taking over the world. Ok, maybe just England, but still. He is imposing and has a certain ability to manipulate people even without his supernatural powers, something that I think must have been a part of even his regular-human personality.Then you have the other main characters, which starts off with Jonathan Harker and his fiancee' (later wife) Mina. They are just normal people trying to live a happy life, and suddenly they are thrown into this mess of Dracula's creating. Jonathan actually travels to Dracula's castle, never realizing until much later that the Count is much more than a normal man. Mina doesn't actually meet Dracula until much later, but she has quite an experience with him due to his involvement with her dearest friend, Lucy.Lucy is the person who actually brings all the other characters together. She is the typical Victorian blushing virgin, and somehow manages to attract marriage proposals from several men all at once. When she becomes a target for some unknown horror, they all come together – not without some awkwardness – to try to help her.Plot:The plot can be summed up in two words: vampire slayers. Because while this book takes AGES to get to the point, in the end that's what it's about. Vanquishing the evil that is Count Dracula and his minions, preventing him from further colonization. There are a couple of sub-plots, but they really don't add a whole lot to the story, in my opinion. Like many books of this era, Dracula is very wordy and goes on and on and on about points that most modern readers really don't care about.Worldbuilding/Setting:The castle is on the very edge of a terrible precipice. A stone falling from the window would fall a thousand feet without touching anything! As far as the eye can reach is a sea of green tree tops, with occasionally a deep rift where there is a chasm. Here and there are silver threads where the rivers wind in deep gorges through the forests.Stoker does a marvelous job of making us see, here, feel, and even smell the setting of Transylvania, the seaside, London. I have absolutely no complaints. I never once felt as though I couldn't picture the world of the characters. To him of course, the world was HIS world.Rating/Other Thoughts:Let me get to these other thoughts before I give my rating.First of all, the religious atmosphere of this book. It really took me by surprise, but I guess, given that the main characters are British during the 1890s (Queen Victoria's reign). I was disappointed that the only things (other than garlic) to repel the vampires are relics of the Christian church. I was extremely disappointed by how many pages were devoted to the characters musing on their rightness with God, on whether or not they would go to heaven or hell, and other similar topics. All very accurate to how people thought and believed during that time.Thus are we ministers of God's own wish: that the world, and men for whom His Son die, will not be given over to monsters, whose very existence would defame Him. He has allowed us to redeem one soul already, and we go out as the old knights of the Cross to redeem more. Like them we shall travel toward sunrise; and like them, if we fall, we fall in good cause.Secondly, the treatment of women. Again it's very accurate to how women in Victorian England were expected to behave, how they were looked at by men and the world at large. Mina Harker, at least, does not entirely accept the traditional role of the fainting female even if she is very willing to accept being the weaker sex. Accurate or not, I find the subservience the female characters demonstrate disturbing. Also disturbing is that Jonathan Harker objects to the female vampire who come to him based solely on the fact that they appear sexually attractive and do not behave like Victoria's shrinking violet female model. He is attracted to them by their beauty and their open admission of their desire, and yet he feels he sins in the attraction.I realize that this is all my perspective through a 21st century lens. The points that strike me as repression and bigotry were completely normal and accepted in society at that time. Does that make them right? Of course not. It does explain how and why characters reacted the way they did, however inexplicable their actions seem to a modern reader.Overall, I'm giving 4 stars. The story, for all its faults, is still gripping even over a hundred years later. Dracula has given rise to countless spin-off tales, even if most modern day readers consider vampires (and werewolves) more sexy than terrifying. Vampires, with their super-human powers of shape changing and manipulation, have enthralled people's imaginations for decades. I don't see Dracula leaving the classics list any time soon.Blog Twitter Bloglovin Instagram Google+———————Holy shit, I FINALLY finished this damn book. Real review to come.

The level of mannerism in the book makes gives it a hearty touch, even for the monster Dracula who addresses his prisoner with civility. In the end, it is a game of wits between a Transylvanian nobleman turned monster and the gentry of London chaperoned by a highly intelligent Dutch medical doctor.

Seriously, a classic that never gets old! Dracula is one of my top favorite books of all times, so reading it again was a treat!

Jonathan Harker sets off on a voyage, to deal with a client, and a long-distance transaction - but things are weird when he arrives. People look at him when he says where he is going, and many warn him off. Paying them no mind, he forges ahead, and soon, things start unfolding in England - where there is not much that he can do about it.

This gothic horror is the stone setting book of its day. This masterpiece cannot be outdone.
While the illustrations were a nice touch throughout this book, the introduction put me off a bit (seriously, we are all tired of hearing about politics, we just want good books to read). Ignore the introduction, and enjoy this classic as it was meant to be.

Thank you to Restless Books, Ingram Publishers, and Edelweiss for an advanced copy of this classic. This new version is coming 3 October 2023.

This was the best book by far that we've read for my Gothic Literature class. (Considering that some of the others we read included Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket and Edgar Huntly: Memoirs of a Sleepwalker, however, that is not terribly hard to accomplish.)

For only the second time among all the novels we read for the class, a female took on a narrative role–a refreshing change for which I was very appreciative, although the novel should not necessarily be categorized as a feminist work. Stoker's prose is haunting and entertaining, and although many people dislike epistolary novels, I found the format engaging and, considering all of the perspectives that Stoker chose to include, appropriate. Stoker's best scenes are those charged with gristle and sexuality–most often both at the same time–and this is the first book in a long time that has made me look over my shoulder as I walk back to my dorm room from the library at night.

Stoker channels the issues of his time–specifically a fear among the British white male upper-class of the invasion of “foreigners” and the empowerment and sexuality of women–fears that upper-class white conservative men in most developed countries seem to still have today, unfortunately. Dracula is the realization of the possible consequences (as Stoker sees it) of these issues coming to fruition. The foreigner will come to your lands, seduce your women, infiltrate your populace and become one of you! Your women will find themselves in a position of autonomy and turn on you, leaving you helpless to combat their immoral and wanton charms! Ah, yes. How current, no?

Unfortunately for the liberal reader, there is no redemption for the empowered women or the foreigner: they are evils that are vanquished. After the assembly of an Avengers-like team of heroes who band together to overcome evil, Dracula is killed (although ambiguously) and Mina returns to the servile, pure state she occupied before vampiric/evil tendencies took hold, and balance is restored to the main characters' homelands. It is still a satisfying story, in the most basic sense: the ending is complete, the loose ends tied, the protagonists have triumphed after many trials, overcoming a clear-cut evil. The home team wins.

One thing I was interested by was the use of religion in the text. In most Gothic texts, religion is at best a vehicle of corruption and at worst a direct cause of it. (The Monk, anyone?) In Dracula, religion–specifically the oft-maligned-at-the-time-in-Protestant-England Catholicism–is the vehicle for vanquishing evil. It is a return to traditional Christianity that allows the dream team to vanquish their new and foreign enemy. And while as a Catholic I resent the alignment of Catholicism with the goals of destroying foreigners and suppressing women, it was refreshing to see it used as a weapon of good in a Gothic text. (See? I am all confused about it. Damn Gothic texts.)

Anyway, Dracula is a classic, and unlike many books, it is just as easily enjoyed as a casual or a close reader. Read it because you want to be cool enough to have read Dracula, but also read it because it is a wildly entertaining and thought-provoking read. I guarantee that it will be nothing like you thought it would be.

A garlic stuffed mouth
major (tasty) overkill
the stake seems enough.

If you're going to read this book...THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD.

I'm not a huge fan of the romanticism/gothic style of writing, but having it read to me by a full cast was definitely a lot easier to swallow then sitting through it trying to read.

Found the characters incredibly stupid and annoying however, I did enjoy the concept Stoker used of revealing the plot via letters and journals. That was a brilliant idea on his part.

The audible cast did a good job, though I do wish Tim Curry had read for Seward rather than Van Helsing, simply because I would have LOVED to hear his voice more.

The woman who read for Mina was lovely. I really enjoyed her.

There's a great story in here, but it was too long drawn out. The opening in Transylvania, the arrival of the Demeter, and the hunt at the end are all memorable, but the entire middle section bogged the whole thing down. Van Helsing, especially, with his clumsy foreigner English was intensely irritating. I began this book almost a year ago and it took a long continuous slog of forcing myself to read a chapter here and there before abandoning the book again for a few weeks. I forced myself to read the last 100 pages this weekend and once I got back into it, it became an enjoyable adventure story again.

I own this as a physical book, ebook and audio book. I have just finished listening to to audio version, have never read the book yet. Well, most of us will have seen one or more of the movies based on this novel and I can honestly say that the closest version to the book is Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman as Dracula. Having only watched the various movies, I hadn't known the story had been written to read like journal entries, letters, newspaper reports, etc. I enjoyed the story. One day, I will read the book.

Enjoyed this one but felt that it would have been at least a third shorter if they didn't keep talking about why god let it happen/how he will not let it happen. Some sections are really exciting. Have to say that without the idle rich we are all doomed as not sure how they would have managed if they actually had jobs to do at the same time.

This took me forever to read. Maybe I would have had a higher opinion of the book had I read it in fewer sittings. I just couldn't do it. I don't know if it was the stilted manner in which Van Helsing spoke or the slow pacing throughout the middle of the book. There were sections of the book that I thought were great, but there were just not enough of them to keep my interest.

The beginning starts out with Jonathan Harker held captive by Count Dracula in his mansion in Transylvania. I thought this was a fantastic beginning and I was totally on board. The epistolary format allowed me to see exactly what was going through Harker's mind as he fully realizes the situation he's in. His earliest journal entries are full of superstitions and doubts and those niggling feelings. By the time he finally leaves, he is so out of his mind with fear and crazy thoughts that he's admitted to a sanitarium. It was awesome. I really enjoy being inside of a crazy person's head (other than my own).

Afterwards, more characters are introduced and the very slow ramping up to the next bit of scary stuff. I found myself irritated with Van Helsing more than once, as he tends to come off as a pompous, secretive, misogynistic ass. And it seems that he really likes to talk. A lot. About not much of anything that can be understood by anyone in the room.

Overall, I'm glad I read it but I don't see myself picking it up again.

Did people actually talk like these characters? Maudlin seems the best way to describe the dialog.

When I first read this, many years ago, I loved the story and had few complaints. I still love the story, but this time around I found myself cheering for Dracula because the rest of the characters are so irritating. Okay, yes, I know, it was the late 1800s and things were very different, but I'm still irritated to be reminded of that. To think that saying a woman had the mind of a man was the highest of compliments! GAH! Because normally they're just fragile, hysterical creatures! Okay, so maybe less irritated and more apoplectic...

A surprisingly engaging read, considering how completely over-done vampires are. Bram may have set in motion an unfortunately tenacious legacy of sexy-vampire morality plays about the evils of temptation (and foreigners), but that's not his fault. And Dracula's actually pretty fresh (irony)! It also makes you admire? hate even more? the Twilight stuff, since I hadn't realized Victorian notions about gender roles and sex were part of the vampire package from day one!

Anyway, Count Draaaacula is a creepy, undead (or, as Stoker prefers it, UnDead) ForeigNer who has gone all camp in his decay, what with his “voluptuous red lips”, strange manicure, and nasty, big, pointy teeth. After terrorizing Diarist #1 (Jonathan Harker) in his ill-kept and empty castle, the action flies to London, where various English people are having various problems.

Told in a series of diary entries, letters, memos, telegrams, newspaper articles and... more diary entries by various characters, this tale is basically a sexist, classist, slightly porny tale about how evil (and yet tempting) sex is. And how women are frail, delicate flowers we must protect, lest they get infected by the sex disease. Read this before you read.

Anyway, this tale has awakened in me an UnDead interest for other vampirey things, and I'm suddenly revisiting trailers for movies that I very intentionally ignored long ago: Gary Oldman's pompadour from hell, or that one movie that I think is actually about the French Revolution, or even the fact that stodgy, silly old Van Helsing is worthy of Hollywood's imagination.