Reviews

Dracula by Bram Stoker

latabernaderol's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.75

 ¿Que puedo decir de Dracula que no haya sido dicho todavía? 
Aparte de que es una muy buena historia, aunque a veces sufre de haber sido escrita en una epoca donde el machismo era la única opción es muy facil notar porque esta historia se convirtió en un clasico tan grande. El manejo del terror que se arma de a poco, y como lentamente los demas personajes se dando cuenta de la situacion es fantastica. Me encantaria poder leer este libro sin ningun conocimientos previo sobre vampiros y dracula, ya que el Slow Burn de lo que es El Conde Dracula es increíble. El suspenso y misterio te mantienen agarrados y queres seguir leyendo. 
Y para con quienes en un momento debatimos de quien es el personaje principal de esta historia, despues de leerla, sigo coincidiendo con mi profe de la facu, El Conde Dracula es el personaje Principal. 

eiventeapot's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous funny mysterious slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.5

3.5 ⭐️
the pace was very slow to me.
van helsing rambled too much, he spoke in page long monologues and it was difficult and a bit annoying to read.
some decisions the characters made were so inconsequential imo, for example their back and forth on letting mina in on their plans vs excluding her.
some of their realisations about the count seemed a bit reaching but that’s fine.
the ending was incredibly anticlimactic, the count just. dies. no fight, no battle, he just gets staked and beheaded in his box. very boring.
i also don’t really understand why quincey morris had to die in the end? there were two doctors with them and they did nothing to stay his wound. very odd. morris’ death feels so pointless, especially since it wasn’t even by the count’s hand.

some of it was very comedic to me though, especially seward’s stuttering in writing.

all in all, it was alright. i can see why it’s a highly regarded classic but it wasn’t my favourite to read.

qwrtymay's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.0

I liked the book more than the film. But now all I see is Keanu as the protagonist 

labunnywtf's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Reviewing this separate from that god awful annotated version.

Reading this reminded me of reading The Scarlet Letter. Amazing story, hard to follow because of the writing style. I also just didn't like the writing in general. The scenery gets chewed far too much for my liking.

The final "hunt" for Dracula felt like it went on for years. And years. And years.

I liked the initial scenes with Harker in the castle for the most part, once he finally got into the castle. I also liked the Lucy bits, though that just draaaaaaaaaaaaaggged on.

Enh.

maishalaforge's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

2.0

Way too long winded and meandering for a casual read. I think Bram Stoker is a great writer, there were a lot of good prose, but the pacing is awful. I assume this was a seralized worked like a lot stuff from the 19th century, so I'm assuming that's why the chapters were so dense. Even then, Van Helsing's monologues every page got really old real fast and no one was really compelling to me near the end.

Dracula wasn't really a precense in the book at all. I was okay with that at first, but then nothing really happens in the middle except Lucy'a death. The midsection is where my problems with the books are. I think the beginning was quite interesting, but once we leave Castle Dracula the story falls apart. The ending was quite good too, but the tension dissipated since it took forever to get there and the journey wasn't worth it.


Overall, it's not a terrible book I just think it's not for me since I'm a modern reader. The dense chapters and snail's pace might have been a good bang for your buck if you were reading this as it was serialized, but it doesn't work in the format of a novel. 

labunnywtf's review against another edition

Go to review page

Finally, the nightmare ends and I am through with this godawful fucking book.

It's not bad enough that the annotations are drier than vamp dust. It's not bad enough that the entirety of the "author" "research" is called into question because he can't be bothered to properly look up items that he references.

No. The absolute worst part about this ridiculous pile of garbage is the inference that ::gasp:: ::OMG:: Dracula is SOOOOO totes real. See how they put the wrong date here? Totally evidence. And how the mountains were here, but now they're here? It's a massive cover up to protect Dracula from future hunters, mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Dude, it's a fucking continuity error. Move the fuck on. I wish I hadn't read this, because I could barely concentrate on the ACTUAL god awful book because of all the ridiculous foot notes about what vampires are REALLY LIKE.

Also, see below. If you're going to reference something, actually do your research. I believe NOTHING that is referenced in this book, because it is beyond obvious the "author" can't be bothered to thoroughly check his sources.

Idiot.

----

Page 310, note 24: The Ann Rice lore proposes that new vampires are created only intentionally by a sire sharing his blood with a victim. Buffy lore, however, is consistent with Van Helsing's initial statement and assumes that anyone killed by a vampire becomes a vampire.

To make a vampire, first they suck your blood, then you suck their blood. It's this whole big sucking thing” - Buffy, “Welcome to the Hellmouth.

Fucker just got his book knocked down to no stars. But I'm going to keep reading anyway.

Page 311, note 27: The Buffy mytholody is a variation of this idea, asserting that a vampire naturally has no soul but has been reanimated by a demon inhabiting the body ... Although the Buffy lore is not explicit on this point, presumably Angel and Spike's bodies are inhabited by both souls and demons - the latter the source of their vampiric characteristics.

"I've had a demon in me for a couple hundred years, just waiting for a good fight." - Angel, "The Dark Age"

NONE of this author's "research" is credible to me right now.

ayushk21's review against another edition

Go to review page

Lost interest. It's a good book but took a way too long break. Will have to start it from scratch.

yemilhead's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional funny lighthearted mysterious reflective sad tense medium-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? Yes

5.0

hope97's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious tense medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

5.0

lit_student_01's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0