Reviews with content warning for Confinement - Dracula

I have finally finished one of the pillars of terror. I am always delighted to find out how original so many “classics” really are. The note-taking narrative was unexpected and very well done, and I love how little we actually saw of the Count himself. But of course, this praise has already been said thousands of times since the late 1800s.

Literary Quality: 9/10.

Spook Factor: 6/10.

Overall: 8/10.

Content Warnings

brnineworms's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark hopeful mysterious sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.0

If Dracula had ended after chapter four, I might have given it a full five stars. The first fifty-odd pages are undoubtedly the best part of the book. Jonathan Harker is trapped in Dracula’s castle, and slowly realising that he is trapped. The atmosphere is tense and eerie. Both Harker and Dracula are interesting and well-developed characters, and the interactions between them are great.

I want to talk for a moment about Count Dracula specifically. In the first four chapters he is depicted as (seemingly) kind, hospitable, careful, and emotionally intelligent, but there’s something sinister about him too. There’s also quite a bit of queer subtext. Dracula is a complicated and sympathetic character at this point, but later his characterisation changes drastically and he ends up being reduced to a cartoonish villain with very little depth. He also becomes a much less prominent part of the narrative – he’s not entirely absent, but he takes on more of a peripheral role. I wish we’d seen more of him. (Interestingly, this is the exact reverse of my view regarding Frankenstein’s monster)

Of course, I must address the elephant in the room – the bigotry. Dracula is a character crafted from several antisemitic tropes. His hooked nose is emphasised many times, and there are parallels between his vampirism (specifically his preying on children) and blood libel. Something else that stands out when viewing the character through this lens is the way he is presented as both an immensely powerful mastermind and a weakling with a “child-brain” – proto-fascist rhetoric, perhaps? The book as a whole is riddled with xenophobia, racism, ableism, and sexism. In many ways it’s a product of its time. Its age doesn’t excuse these problematic elements, but it does offer some context at least.

I was led to believe that Dracula is slow-paced but for a gothic horror story it’s actually very quick. It’s relatively well-written, and the epistolary format is executed well. Excellent build-up to an anticlimactic ending. There’s so much more I could say about the characters and the story (both praise and criticism) but I think I’ll wrap things up here.

Overall I did enjoy Dracula and I’m glad I finally sat down and read it. It’s certainly not without its flaws but I think it’s worth reading if you haven’t already.

“The last I saw of Count Dracula was his kissing his hand to me, with a red light of triumph in his eyes, and with a smile that Judas in hell might be proud of.”

Content Warnings

irene_addler's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious tense 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

I didn't actually know the story of Dracula before reading the book, so I went in about as uninformed as one could go into Dracula (I had read The Route of Ice and Salt by Jose Luis Zarate, translated by David Bowles first though.) I also had forgotten it is an epistolary, which was a pretty awesome surprise.

Overall, Dracula is an amazing book, and it's no surprise the book has withstood the test of time. I was warned that maybe it would feel tropey, because it established so many tropes, but it didn't feel tropey to me at all. In fact, I was surprised to see that Dracula is not always the stereotypical vampire we might think he is.

I expected this book to be more of a product of its time, and while in some senses it is, it's very forward thinking, including giving a woman an important--vital, even--role (there aren't a lot of women, but the main cast is fairly small). Though compliments to women are things like "She has a man's brain...", you will find ample use of the term "g*psy" (which is to be expected for the time), and there is some racism--it's up for debate if those are Stoker's feelings or the characters at times. But even at its worst, I didn't find it appalling, just out-of-date. (Granted, their treatment of a patient at the asylum is pretty bad at times.)

From the get go, I was enthralled in this book. While it is slow, there is a lot of excitement and the climax really felt exciting and quick when push came to shove.

My biggest gripe would be that Dr. Van Helsing's dialogue and writing can be tough to read since his English isn't super strong, as well as some other accents, which Stoker insists on writing out as it would be said. The accents and dialects can be tough to read, but they're all interesting characters.

I recommend picking up either a Penguin version or another annotated version to help clear up some things less evident to modern and American readers. Plus there are all sorts of really interesting studies on the book as well as Bram Stoker.

Overall, I definitely recommend it. While it is slow-paced, the story clips along well all the same. In my opinion, a perfect balance for a slow-paced read.

Content Warnings