Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Diverse cast of characters:
No
3.5/5 I can see how this book shaped the Vampire legend and themes in the modern age. Unfortunately, over 1/3 of this book is unnecessary and the ending happens so abruptly it’s almost as if the Stoker ran out of time or interest
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
It was very different than I expected based off only knowing pop culture Dracula, but I had a lot of fun reading this.
Had to use the dictionary a few times, but the imagery/atmosphere really can through for me. So interesting to see what parts of Vampire lore have really stuck around and what fell off. Didn’t love the way women are described but it is a product of its time.
Had to use the dictionary a few times, but the imagery/atmosphere really can through for me. So interesting to see what parts of Vampire lore have really stuck around and what fell off. Didn’t love the way women are described but it is a product of its time.
Trigger warning for those who need it: Violence, death, murder, child abduction, child death, depictions of mental illness, misogyny, the supernatural, imprisonment, references to suicide, animal abuse (about a character eating spiders and other insects), descriptions of spiders and other insects.'
I haven't read this book since high school, but I remember loving it then. So, I was excited when I picked it up randomly from a jar.
Dracula, in short, is about a group of friends and their encounters with Dracula while being told through letters, journals, diaries, and telegraphs. It's a unique way of telling a story, but that lends to its problems. I saw a comment on the audiobook done by a YouTuber that said it's just a DnD game where the party takes five weeks to defeat the main boss, and all the characters keep rolling low. That is both a hilarious comment but also not a lie. Link to video here https://youtu.be/nfGI0inzgVI?si=v4LGb0NlxAysXzH3t
This book lacks said vampire and drags on forever. There are descriptions of everything. In the first two chapters, the food one character, Jonathan Harker, eats while on his way to see Count Dracula is described in detail as making me hungry. It wasn't crucial to the story, but there it was, making me want food instead of reading more of it.
There are a bunch of religious undertones to the story, from the obvious being Dracula being unable to go near crosses and the likes to save souls, the damnation, and the vicious cycle of vampirism spreading. A human is targeted and turned into a vampire by an original vampire, and it continues.
The first victim we see of this is Lucy.
There are better and more educated people who can analyze the religious undertones and what they mean, but it does lead to excellent discussions.
This book has a few points that confuse me. The first one involves Lucy and the blood transfusion. This is a nitpick because you can suspend your disbelief on certain things in a supernatural novel. Still, she is so lucky that all the suitors have the same blood type as her. If they didn't, her body would attack the foreign blood, and that would finish her off before anything else could.
Another point is that Dracula himself is supposed to be mysterious. He is supposed to be someone you don't know anything about. Usually, that would be scary because it taps into the fear of the unknown. Still, since he's barely there and present, just anything would be needed at this point. We don't find anything besides his general vampire powers and one mention of him fighting in a war.
That's not entirely true. We do learn that Dracula was ever learning and that his target set on Lucy and Mina was because he wanted to expand from Romanian women, so that's something. Oh, we also learn a lot about his dirt. Jack Sparrow and his jar of dirt are quaking.
I can see why it's a classic. When it has creepy and dark moments, they do it well. You can discuss the themes and see what it was like during the time (it was written in 1897) through the window. However, it dragged on for so long I was getting bored. I like the Van Helsing moments, especially the Lucy and Renfield moments, but they didn't save this book.
I'll give it a 2.5 out of 5. There's nostalgia for me, and there were at least a few good moments—not consistently good, but it was there. It's a classic that spawned so many variations of Dracula, from the Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder film to the movie Renfield and even the German Broadway production called Dracula: Das Musical (my favorite song is between There's Always a Tomorrow or Zu Ende).
The question is, does it hold up for when I read it when I was younger? Another arises, which is, do I recommend? For the first one, no, it doesn't hold up. I wouldn't say I liked it as much now as I did back then. For the second one, if you are into the gothic and want to start your classic journey, go for it and see if you like it. I read along while the Classic Ghost Stories Podcast - Tony Walker narrated on Youtube, so I recommend the audiobook; The voices help get into it.
I haven't read this book since high school, but I remember loving it then. So, I was excited when I picked it up randomly from a jar.
Dracula, in short, is about a group of friends and their encounters with Dracula while being told through letters, journals, diaries, and telegraphs. It's a unique way of telling a story, but that lends to its problems. I saw a comment on the audiobook done by a YouTuber that said it's just a DnD game where the party takes five weeks to defeat the main boss, and all the characters keep rolling low. That is both a hilarious comment but also not a lie. Link to video here https://youtu.be/nfGI0inzgVI?si=v4LGb0NlxAysXzH3t
This book lacks said vampire and drags on forever. There are descriptions of everything. In the first two chapters, the food one character, Jonathan Harker, eats while on his way to see Count Dracula is described in detail as making me hungry. It wasn't crucial to the story, but there it was, making me want food instead of reading more of it.
There are a bunch of religious undertones to the story, from the obvious being Dracula being unable to go near crosses and the likes to save souls, the damnation, and the vicious cycle of vampirism spreading. A human is targeted and turned into a vampire by an original vampire, and it continues.
The first victim we see of this is Lucy.
There are better and more educated people who can analyze the religious undertones and what they mean, but it does lead to excellent discussions.
This book has a few points that confuse me. The first one involves Lucy and the blood transfusion. This is a nitpick because you can suspend your disbelief on certain things in a supernatural novel. Still, she is so lucky that all the suitors have the same blood type as her. If they didn't, her body would attack the foreign blood, and that would finish her off before anything else could.
Another point is that Dracula himself is supposed to be mysterious. He is supposed to be someone you don't know anything about. Usually, that would be scary because it taps into the fear of the unknown. Still, since he's barely there and present, just anything would be needed at this point. We don't find anything besides his general vampire powers and one mention of him fighting in a war.
That's not entirely true. We do learn that Dracula was ever learning and that his target set on Lucy and Mina was because he wanted to expand from Romanian women, so that's something. Oh, we also learn a lot about his dirt. Jack Sparrow and his jar of dirt are quaking.
I can see why it's a classic. When it has creepy and dark moments, they do it well. You can discuss the themes and see what it was like during the time (it was written in 1897) through the window. However, it dragged on for so long I was getting bored. I like the Van Helsing moments, especially the Lucy and Renfield moments, but they didn't save this book.
I'll give it a 2.5 out of 5. There's nostalgia for me, and there were at least a few good moments—not consistently good, but it was there. It's a classic that spawned so many variations of Dracula, from the Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder film to the movie Renfield and even the German Broadway production called Dracula: Das Musical (my favorite song is between There's Always a Tomorrow or Zu Ende).
The question is, does it hold up for when I read it when I was younger? Another arises, which is, do I recommend? For the first one, no, it doesn't hold up. I wouldn't say I liked it as much now as I did back then. For the second one, if you are into the gothic and want to start your classic journey, go for it and see if you like it. I read along while the Classic Ghost Stories Podcast - Tony Walker narrated on Youtube, so I recommend the audiobook; The voices help get into it.
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
dark
emotional
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Dracula is dark, urgent, and shockingly modern. The journals and letters pulled me into the chase, and by the end I was breathless. A haunting, exhilarating read.
One of my new favorite books. Well written and very engaging!