Scan barcode
natfoster's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
funny
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
syd_reads_sometimes's review
3.0
****Quasi-spoiler in third paragraph****
Dracula was something I'd been meaning to read for a long time—aside from a sense of duty to be somewhat well-read in classic literature—because of the pervasive nature of vampire lore in movies, television and modern literature. I'm inquisitive about the source of things, that is, the inspiration behind cyclical cultural trends and references in entertainment. This is not to say that Bram Stoker's Dracula is by any means the first text to explore vampire folklore, but it is considered a quintessential work within the vampire universe from which subsequent works construct their canon.
But Dracula is not just about vampires—the novel brings to light several themes, such as gender roles in Victorian culture, socioeconomic classism, and sexuality, among others. Most interesting to me was Stoker's characterization of Victorian women, in particular Mina, a fiercely intelligent and resourceful woman whom the male protagonists hold in the highest regard. Yet, true to the times, her mental prowess is observed not as a mere human virtue, but as a function of her possessing a "male brain". I found Mina's relationship with the men to be a fascinating example of the way women were regarded in the Victorian era—it seemed to mark the beginning of a slow transition from marginalization of women as "the weaker sex" to extremely capable equals. There still seemed to be a, albeit innocuous, hesitation to consider women as true equals, as they were seen as delicate treasures prone to hysterics and thus more fragile, emotionally and physically, than their male counterparts. Any strong characteristic, therefore, could be considered unfeminine and a feature of masculinity, instead of a trait indiscriminately available to either sex or gender. It encourages one to consider just what makes certain traits particularly feminine or masculine, and why.
Anyway, I enjoyed the novel, but found the ending VERY anticlimactic. I wasn't sure what, exactly, I was expecting—I suppose something more confrontational? I also would have liked to learn more about the Count, such as how he became the monster he was, what he was like when human, etc., but that would have been undoable given the novel's epistolary format. And I'm fairly certain vampires, especially those who enjoy higher social status like the Count, had better things to do than transcribe life's mundane details in their journals. In any case, Dracula is a great work of classic literature that I encourage everyone to visit at least once. It's only 96 pages, after all!
Dracula was something I'd been meaning to read for a long time—aside from a sense of duty to be somewhat well-read in classic literature—because of the pervasive nature of vampire lore in movies, television and modern literature. I'm inquisitive about the source of things, that is, the inspiration behind cyclical cultural trends and references in entertainment. This is not to say that Bram Stoker's Dracula is by any means the first text to explore vampire folklore, but it is considered a quintessential work within the vampire universe from which subsequent works construct their canon.
But Dracula is not just about vampires—the novel brings to light several themes, such as gender roles in Victorian culture, socioeconomic classism, and sexuality, among others. Most interesting to me was Stoker's characterization of Victorian women, in particular Mina, a fiercely intelligent and resourceful woman whom the male protagonists hold in the highest regard. Yet, true to the times, her mental prowess is observed not as a mere human virtue, but as a function of her possessing a "male brain". I found Mina's relationship with the men to be a fascinating example of the way women were regarded in the Victorian era—it seemed to mark the beginning of a slow transition from marginalization of women as "the weaker sex" to extremely capable equals. There still seemed to be a, albeit innocuous, hesitation to consider women as true equals, as they were seen as delicate treasures prone to hysterics and thus more fragile, emotionally and physically, than their male counterparts. Any strong characteristic, therefore, could be considered unfeminine and a feature of masculinity, instead of a trait indiscriminately available to either sex or gender. It encourages one to consider just what makes certain traits particularly feminine or masculine, and why.
Anyway, I enjoyed the novel, but found the ending VERY anticlimactic. I wasn't sure what, exactly, I was expecting—I suppose something more confrontational? I also would have liked to learn more about the Count, such as how he became the monster he was, what he was like when human, etc., but that would have been undoable given the novel's epistolary format. And I'm fairly certain vampires, especially those who enjoy higher social status like the Count, had better things to do than transcribe life's mundane details in their journals. In any case, Dracula is a great work of classic literature that I encourage everyone to visit at least once. It's only 96 pages, after all!
emiged's review
3.0
Dracula holds up as the seminal vampire novel, even over a hundred years after its first publication. This is no Buffy/Angel, Sookie/Bill, Bella/Edward incarnation of vampires. Stoker's imagination devised a black-and-white dichotomy that allows for no gray area. Vampires are pure evil. Our protagonists are inherently good, through and through. While this makes it somewhat difficult to relate to the characters on a personal level, it certainly fits the genre of a Gothic horror novel and provides the thrill of suspense and good triumphing over evil.
There are several interesting aspects of the folklore surrounding vampires that don't seem to have made it into the modern versions. For example, wild roses are as effective as garlic in warding off vampires. Dracula can transform into many creatures including a bat, a dog, and a wolf. And he can become a fog or mist, seeping in through small cracks though he still has to be invited in by a resident of the house. While he's exceptionally strong and can be destroyed by a stake through the heart, he can't cross running water of his own volition. And sunlight doesn't destroy him, it just limits his powers.
The major weakness of the novel for me was the ham-handed and unsubtle attempts at differentiating the characters' voices (since the novel is told through journal entries, letters and notes). The brilliant Dutch scientist Dr. Van Helsing sounds like an illiterate kindergartener when he talks in broken English. The American Quincey Morris speaks in cliched phrases about the Wild West and Winchesters. The dialects of minor, lower-class English characters are almost unintelligible to modern readers. But that aside, it's an interesting insight into the Victorian mindset about gender expectations, the role of religion in life, and medical and scientific understanding of the time.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
There are several interesting aspects of the folklore surrounding vampires that don't seem to have made it into the modern versions. For example, wild roses are as effective as garlic in warding off vampires. Dracula can transform into many creatures including a bat, a dog, and a wolf. And he can become a fog or mist, seeping in through small cracks though he still has to be invited in by a resident of the house. While he's exceptionally strong and can be destroyed by a stake through the heart, he can't cross running water of his own volition. And sunlight doesn't destroy him, it just limits his powers.
The major weakness of the novel for me was the ham-handed and unsubtle attempts at differentiating the characters' voices (since the novel is told through journal entries, letters and notes). The brilliant Dutch scientist Dr. Van Helsing sounds like an illiterate kindergartener when he talks in broken English. The American Quincey Morris speaks in cliched phrases about the Wild West and Winchesters. The dialects of minor, lower-class English characters are almost unintelligible to modern readers. But that aside, it's an interesting insight into the Victorian mindset about gender expectations, the role of religion in life, and medical and scientific understanding of the time.
For more book reviews, come visit my blog, Build Enough Bookshelves.
beyadob's review
4.0
Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the granddaddy of all the vampires out there right now, and damn, was he a beast! This is a beautiful book with excellent illustrations that properly convey the feeling of horror and loneliness the characters go through. The text felt a bit stilted, but that’s a given considering just how old the story is.
Overall, I’d highly recommend this. It is full of gorgeous artwork that is backed by an intense story of evil incarnate. It also shows how far the vampire mythology has come, especially considering its many forms these days, with Blade on one hand and Twilight on the extreme other. It’s good to know Dracula can still stand heads and shoulders above the current batch of vampires.
Overall, I’d highly recommend this. It is full of gorgeous artwork that is backed by an intense story of evil incarnate. It also shows how far the vampire mythology has come, especially considering its many forms these days, with Blade on one hand and Twilight on the extreme other. It’s good to know Dracula can still stand heads and shoulders above the current batch of vampires.
qaphsiel's review
3.0
This is, of course, the seminal book of the vampire subgenre, and in that sense any fan of vampire fiction, and probably most horror fans, should give it a read.
It's an epistolary novel, using diary entries, newspaper articles, and telegrams from, by and about the half a dozen or so major characters to tell the tale. (I was unaware of until reading it.) The problem with this, at least in Stoker's case, is that one never really manages a deep connection to the characters. Granted the format makes building that connection difficult, but I have read epistolary novels that have managed it.
Additionally, Stoker's attempt to keep the entries more 'real' (I can't think of better way to say it, and it may not have been a conscious effort in any event) mean there is a great deal of extraneous information which bogs down his already pretty average prose.
Without the presence of its historical significance it's unlikely I'd recommend this novel, but because it is so influential and important I do, with caveats related to the pacing and format mentioned above.
It's an epistolary novel, using diary entries, newspaper articles, and telegrams from, by and about the half a dozen or so major characters to tell the tale. (I was unaware of until reading it.) The problem with this, at least in Stoker's case, is that one never really manages a deep connection to the characters. Granted the format makes building that connection difficult, but I have read epistolary novels that have managed it.
Additionally, Stoker's attempt to keep the entries more 'real' (I can't think of better way to say it, and it may not have been a conscious effort in any event) mean there is a great deal of extraneous information which bogs down his already pretty average prose.
Without the presence of its historical significance it's unlikely I'd recommend this novel, but because it is so influential and important I do, with caveats related to the pacing and format mentioned above.
hifra's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
croote7's review
2.0
Finally read this classic novel. It was better than I expected, but, not surprisingly for a novel written at that time, it was sexist (although it could have been tongue-in-cheek, because the lead female character was a lot stronger than the males gave her credit for). it was suspenseful in places and dragged in other places. Overly melodramatic much of the time.
camz's review
adventurous
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
reseña 2020:
Cuando me propuse releer en el 2019 al menos 1 de mis libros favoritos de los últimos 8 años, no tenía planeado incluir Drácula y es que a pesar que recordaba que me había gustado mucho he leído/ escuchado tantas opiniones sobre el, que me había convencido que no me gustaría tanto en una segunda lectura; que es aburrido, que es lento,que es denso,etc. Y la verdad es que si es todas esas cosas, pero de todos modos pasé un muy buen momento.
Como mi memoria es la peor del mundo, ya había olvidado muchas cosas de la historia y en especial de las habilidades que tiene Drácula, algunas son fáciles de recordar porque han sido reproducidas en muchas otras historias de vampiro pero otras no recordaba para nada e incluso se contradicen con el actual canon del género paranormal. Vampiros y hombres lobos siendo enemigos creo que es un aspecto muy común en lo paranormal, pero aquí Drácula se puede transformar en un lobo y los controla. Cuando lo leí no lo podía creer (a pesar que ya lo había leído, maldita memoria).
En fin,que a pesar de mi miedo terminó por gustarme tanto o más que la primera vez y volvió a despertar en mí la obsesión con los vampiros que había estado yendo a la baja por que de un tiempo a esta parte lo único que trato de leer de vampiros son las crónicas vampíricas de Anne Rice y no estoy pasando un buen momento con esa serie.
Así que espero en el 2020 leer más de vampiros.
Cuando me propuse releer en el 2019 al menos 1 de mis libros favoritos de los últimos 8 años, no tenía planeado incluir Drácula y es que a pesar que recordaba que me había gustado mucho he leído/ escuchado tantas opiniones sobre el, que me había convencido que no me gustaría tanto en una segunda lectura; que es aburrido, que es lento,que es denso,etc. Y la verdad es que si es todas esas cosas, pero de todos modos pasé un muy buen momento.
Como mi memoria es la peor del mundo, ya había olvidado muchas cosas de la historia y en especial de las habilidades que tiene Drácula, algunas son fáciles de recordar porque han sido reproducidas en muchas otras historias de vampiro pero otras no recordaba para nada e incluso se contradicen con el actual canon del género paranormal. Vampiros y hombres lobos siendo enemigos creo que es un aspecto muy común en lo paranormal, pero aquí Drácula se puede transformar en un lobo y los controla. Cuando lo leí no lo podía creer (a pesar que ya lo había leído, maldita memoria).
En fin,que a pesar de mi miedo terminó por gustarme tanto o más que la primera vez y volvió a despertar en mí la obsesión con los vampiros que había estado yendo a la baja por que de un tiempo a esta parte lo único que trato de leer de vampiros son las crónicas vampíricas de Anne Rice y no estoy pasando un buen momento con esa serie.
Así que espero en el 2020 leer más de vampiros.
truepoetsofthesea's review
3.0
At first it was kind of slow and confusing, but when all the stories tangled together, everything made sense.
It's a really good book, really well written, and I liked it.
It's a really good book, really well written, and I liked it.
veronikahvee's review
5.0
For years I heard of this book, of how it was one of the greatest horror novels to be written, of how it changed the idea of vampires, of Dracula being one of the greatest villains to be created.
When I started reading this book, there was all this praising in the back of my mind, not to mention my not-so-good experience watching the 1992 Dracula movie, and so I was scared, no, terrified, of what I was going to read, terrified of being disappointed, of this supposed amazing book not being as amazing as it's supposed to be. I didn't want this to be another "mainstream but not that good" book. Nor did I want to read about the creepy "romance" between the Count and Mina, this creepy connection that they had in the aforementioned movie.
Thankfully, I did not find any of these "monsters under the bed". Bram Stoker did not fail me, even after being dead for over a 100 years.
I loved the way Stoker chose to write in. Letters, journals, newspaper articles, it was surprising at first, but gosh, I loved the atmosphere they provided.
And the characters... I loved how Mina was a typical 19th century woman but also had a modern thinking. She did not stay put and waited for the men to do all the work, she would do things out of her own will, while still respecting her friends' requests of staying safe. She knew when there was something she could do and when there was something that was simply out of her league. And I loved that Stoker didn't write her as just a pawn in the whole story.
I have to say that at times the characters felt flat, but their actions and their relationships (what each other was willing to do for the rest) were able to change my mind in the end. It was interesting to see these people that didn't knew each other that well become as close as Mina and Lucy were once, it was really cool.
Anyway, despite being flawed at times, Dracula is a bloody brilliant book (pun totally intended, I saw the chance and took it!) with a great pace and well-written mystery that lives up to its fame.
And yes, it is as gothic and scary as they say ;)
When I started reading this book, there was all this praising in the back of my mind, not to mention my not-so-good experience watching the 1992 Dracula movie, and so I was scared, no, terrified, of what I was going to read, terrified of being disappointed, of this supposed amazing book not being as amazing as it's supposed to be. I didn't want this to be another "mainstream but not that good" book. Nor did I want to read about the creepy "romance" between the Count and Mina, this creepy connection that they had in the aforementioned movie.
Thankfully, I did not find any of these "monsters under the bed". Bram Stoker did not fail me, even after being dead for over a 100 years.
I loved the way Stoker chose to write in. Letters, journals, newspaper articles, it was surprising at first, but gosh, I loved the atmosphere they provided.
And the characters... I loved how Mina was a typical 19th century woman but also had a modern thinking. She did not stay put and waited for the men to do all the work, she would do things out of her own will, while still respecting her friends' requests of staying safe. She knew when there was something she could do and when there was something that was simply out of her league. And I loved that Stoker didn't write her as just a pawn in the whole story.
I have to say that at times the characters felt flat, but their actions and their relationships (what each other was willing to do for the rest) were able to change my mind in the end. It was interesting to see these people that didn't knew each other that well become as close as Mina and Lucy were once, it was really cool.
Anyway, despite being flawed at times, Dracula is a bloody brilliant book (pun totally intended, I saw the chance and took it!) with a great pace and well-written mystery that lives up to its fame.
And yes, it is as gothic and scary as they say ;)