Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
I appreciate this so much. It was just so long winded at times that it was difficult to keep interested. Overall, positive read but, put it down about three fourths through.
adventurous
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
this was a way more enjoyable read then i expected! but also i did imagine dracula as justin mcelroy from the Halloween episode of the mbmbam tv show where he randomly pops up on the screen in a cape and goes AAARRRRRAAARRR and i feel like it added a certain je ne sais quoi to the story
dark
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Reading Stoker's Dracula is like listening to an elderly relative recount their greatest stories for the third or fourth time.
This book was foundational for vampire literature. But, just like Pudd'nhead Wilson which was foundational for mystery novels hinging on forensic science (and so I already knew the ending from nearly the beginning), the real driving force of Dracula wasn't as compelling to me because I've read or watched several other media which took vampire themes in more interesting ways (like Sinners and 'Salem's Lot).
This is not to say that this book isn't exploring some unique themes. I think the discussion and tension around gender roles and "respectability" is compelling, and I think that Dracula, as a character, was very interesting and horrifying to read in the first portion of the novel.
Sadly, I couldn't get over the fact that I kept getting frustrated at the "good" characters for their gross lack of judgement in scenarios in which is was entirely expected for them to act in the way they did given their time and place. I read this with an anachronistic lens, and I couldn't just suspend it for the sake of this book. I can forgive Stoker for that.
What I could swallow less was the endless exposition and seemingly circular re-explanations at certain points. The continual reference to the need to protect Mrs. Harker, the in-depth, greatly detailed plans of attack including stops, timetables, and other such details, the meandering news clippings. I'm all for building up a world through deep, integrated passages, but sometimes the clippings and external, non-journal or letter entries seemed to drag. That also may be a "me thing," but it seems less excusable than the frustrating actions of the characters.
It bears repeating, however, that I think Dracula, as a character, deserved more time to explore and grapple with. There was a surprising lack of depth into his character given the title of the book.
I would recommend this to anyone curious about exploring more vampire literature, but not for anyone looking for a light vampire read.
This book was foundational for vampire literature. But, just like Pudd'nhead Wilson which was foundational for mystery novels hinging on forensic science (and so I already knew the ending from nearly the beginning), the real driving force of Dracula wasn't as compelling to me because I've read or watched several other media which took vampire themes in more interesting ways (like Sinners and 'Salem's Lot).
This is not to say that this book isn't exploring some unique themes. I think the discussion and tension around gender roles and "respectability" is compelling, and I think that Dracula, as a character, was very interesting and horrifying to read in the first portion of the novel.
Sadly, I couldn't get over the fact that I kept getting frustrated at the "good" characters for their gross lack of judgement in scenarios in which is was entirely expected for them to act in the way they did given their time and place. I read this with an anachronistic lens, and I couldn't just suspend it for the sake of this book. I can forgive Stoker for that.
What I could swallow less was the endless exposition and seemingly circular re-explanations at certain points. The continual reference to the need to protect Mrs. Harker, the in-depth, greatly detailed plans of attack including stops, timetables, and other such details, the meandering news clippings. I'm all for building up a world through deep, integrated passages, but sometimes the clippings and external, non-journal or letter entries seemed to drag. That also may be a "me thing," but it seems less excusable than the frustrating actions of the characters.
It bears repeating, however, that I think Dracula, as a character, deserved more time to explore and grapple with. There was a surprising lack of depth into his character given the title of the book.
I would recommend this to anyone curious about exploring more vampire literature, but not for anyone looking for a light vampire read.
challenging
dark
tense
medium-paced
adventurous
dark
emotional
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I really enjoyed the book, the ending was a bit weird and rushed but I think that it was really well written
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
adventurous
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
Classic for a reason. Great pacing, interesting chapters, and of course, Dracula.