You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.26 AVERAGE
3.26 AVERAGE
for heavens sake, read the original ending!
http://bramstoker.org/txt/novels/08stars03.txt
http://bramstoker.org/txt/novels/08stars03.txt
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I gave this book a 3-star review simply because it was so awful that it was excellent. It was chosen for my book club because we all wanted to read a Bram Stoker novel and thought Dracula was too obvious of a choice. We were wrong. Dracula may be the only redeeming book Bram Stoker has written. That being said, we had a fabulous time discussing the ridiculousness of this novel so I recommend it for a book club.
Fui positivamente surpreendida por este livro, uma vez que tinha ficado desiludida com o Drácula e este se revelou diferente e melhor. Com a ação a iniciar-se logo nas primeiras páginas, o enigma envolve o leitor, que fica empenhado em desvendar o significado das pequenas pistas que vão sendo lançadas (sendo que muitas delas não são explicadas no final). Bram Stoker revela um profundo conhecimento em relação à cultura egípcia e entramos na mentalidade de outros tempos, de outra cultura. Embora durante toda a obra tenha suspeitado da culpa ou cumplicidade de Margaret em relação ao caso, acaba por se revelar uma espécie de meio de transmissão do “corpo astral” da rainha Tera para a atualidade. Com uma ação fluentemente desenrolada e um discurso menos monótono do que Drácula, este livro lê-se facilmente, embora continue a haver partes, como as longas reflexões do narrador ou de Mr. Trelawny, que podem ser passadas à frente. A descrição é abundante, especialmente quando se trata dos objetos egípcios, e a escrita em primeira pessoa deixa transparecer os sentimentos do autor, particularmente em relação ao seu amor por Margaret. Por fim, embora não tivesse um fim ideal em mente, , o final deixou-me um pouco desiludida, pois acabei por não perceber o porquê de muitos acontecimentos e foi tão inesperado como incompreensível ter sucedido o que sucedeu, o que é agravado pelo facto de o narrador ter saído são e salvo da situação.
Assim, considero que é um livro interessante, apelativo (inclusive pela capa que apresenta), que surpreende pelo seu aspeto enigmático e cativante, mas que desilude pelo seu desfecho inusitado e pouco esclarecedor.
Assim, considero que é um livro interessante, apelativo (inclusive pela capa que apresenta), que surpreende pelo seu aspeto enigmático e cativante, mas que desilude pelo seu desfecho inusitado e pouco esclarecedor.
The jewel of the seven stars Is an excellent novel. I think this is even better than dracula. It's starting and progression are good but the ending is rather bad. It is heard that, it once have a very terible climax that have been replaced by the protest from the readers
dark
mysterious
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
Four stars with the original 1903 ending, which was actually pretty scary. Three stars with the 1912 meh ending.
I was very curious to read another book by Bram Stoker, needless to say, I love Dracula. The Jewel of Seven Stars is a curious intriguing book. But it suffers from the pesky The Casual Vacancy syndrome, and is underrated, because, well - it's not Dracula.
Of course it isn't Dracula, but you can see it's the same writer. The switching of perspectives is smooth, we slip easily into two long stories - one by an old explorer when he first unearthed Queen Tera's tomb and the other by Mr. Trelawney's friend about their journeys through Egypt. Malcolm Ross's first person narration resembles Jonathan Harker's in its deep detailed descriptions. But I love how we have a very biased view of the story, partial to the admirable Margaret Trelawney whom the lawyer never doubts. We see every character through the almost self-deprecating eyes of Ross, who gives so little away about himself - we only know of his intellect and experience through the others' easy confidence in him. Stoker is good with characters in Dracula, and this is no less.
Another truly enchanting quality of the book is its mood. The atmosphere is rich with suspense and mythical exoticness. The glimpses into the old unfamiliar culture are evident not only through the travels to Egypt but in that antique quality possessed by the Trelawneys' house and lives.
The book questions belief and experimentation, questions science and skeptics, and contrasts the knowledge of the Old and New worlds. It also has a very feministic quality, and Margaret Trelawney is a remarkable character, comparable with Mina, if in nothing other than her strength.
What the book lacks is perhaps a coherent structure. The plot is confusing, its pace inconsistent. It almost feels as if not enough work went into it. And then there's the ending - abrupt, bizarre, surprising and actually effective. I don't think Stoker ever intended for Margaret's 'connection' with Queen Tera to be a secret - but even with only thirty pages left in the book, we find it hard to imagine what might happen next and when the ending does come it leaves us aghast - in a good way, if that's possible. Think: every Stephen King ending, it's so simple, you wouldn't have dreamt a whole book would built up to that. Now I prefer such an ending to an unexpected unlikely twist. But I can see how others wouldn't. Apparently: Stoker was forced to rewrite his disturbing, depressing ending to make it more appealing to the masses. (I wish he hadn't fallen for that.)
My copy had both endings. The first shocked me, so I tried the next. But: the alternate ending is mind-numbingly sappy, a fairy tale wrap-up so enormously disappointing, it spoils the overall effect of the book - like a delicious dessert with a bad after-taste, which makes you wish you hadn't eaten that thing in the first place.
Would I recommend this book? Yes, if you know what to expect. It's not outright horror, more a mix of dark fantasy, adventure and mystery. It's also not Dracula. If you do decide to read this, though, I'd suggest making sure you read the first ending, the one that Stoker originally intended. What you want is the 1903 version, which you can find here.
Of course it isn't Dracula, but you can see it's the same writer. The switching of perspectives is smooth, we slip easily into two long stories - one by an old explorer when he first unearthed Queen Tera's tomb and the other by Mr. Trelawney's friend about their journeys through Egypt. Malcolm Ross's first person narration resembles Jonathan Harker's in its deep detailed descriptions. But I love how we have a very biased view of the story, partial to the admirable Margaret Trelawney whom the lawyer never doubts. We see every character through the almost self-deprecating eyes of Ross, who gives so little away about himself - we only know of his intellect and experience through the others' easy confidence in him. Stoker is good with characters in Dracula, and this is no less.
Another truly enchanting quality of the book is its mood. The atmosphere is rich with suspense and mythical exoticness. The glimpses into the old unfamiliar culture are evident not only through the travels to Egypt but in that antique quality possessed by the Trelawneys' house and lives.
The book questions belief and experimentation, questions science and skeptics, and contrasts the knowledge of the Old and New worlds. It also has a very feministic quality, and Margaret Trelawney is a remarkable character, comparable with Mina, if in nothing other than her strength.
What the book lacks is perhaps a coherent structure. The plot is confusing, its pace inconsistent. It almost feels as if not enough work went into it. And then there's the ending - abrupt, bizarre, surprising and actually effective. I don't think Stoker ever intended for Margaret's 'connection' with Queen Tera to be a secret - but even with only thirty pages left in the book, we find it hard to imagine what might happen next and when the ending does come it leaves us aghast - in a good way, if that's possible. Think: every Stephen King ending, it's so simple, you wouldn't have dreamt a whole book would built up to that. Now I prefer such an ending to an unexpected unlikely twist. But I can see how others wouldn't. Apparently: Stoker was forced to rewrite his disturbing, depressing ending to make it more appealing to the masses. (I wish he hadn't fallen for that.)
My copy had both endings. The first shocked me, so I tried the next. But: the alternate ending is mind-numbingly sappy, a fairy tale wrap-up so enormously disappointing, it spoils the overall effect of the book - like a delicious dessert with a bad after-taste, which makes you wish you hadn't eaten that thing in the first place.
Would I recommend this book? Yes, if you know what to expect. It's not outright horror, more a mix of dark fantasy, adventure and mystery. It's also not Dracula. If you do decide to read this, though, I'd suggest making sure you read the first ending, the one that Stoker originally intended. What you want is the 1903 version, which you can find here.