Reviews

Dracula by Bram Stoker

Only show reviews with written explanations

callypeeso's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious tense medium-paced

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

4.75

crustypatriot's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

I really wanted to like this book. At rare times I did, especially the beginning in the castle with John. Also Lucy's storyline was amazing, although the fact that Stoker described in detail her blood transfusions for pages upon pages was quite annoying to say the least. The writing is also very dated. He also writes very agonizingly slow and blazes through several days in the story within a page or two. It doesn't help to connect characters or make them feel any weight. Also the ending was very anticlimactic as Stoker doesn't know how to set up tension very well in his story it seems. Not an easy read but still had interesting moments and was a very creepy story. If you are a big fan of classic stories or love vampires then I would say give this book a try, otherwise it is far from a must read. I would give it 2/5 but since I am such a vampire fan and love classics I will give it a 3/5.

tfj's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark tense medium-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

Meine Güte, wie gruselig war das denn? Ich habe mich mal an Hannahs Expertinnenempfehlung gehalten und so getan, als würde ich nicht den Plot schon aus jeglicher Popkultur rund um Vampire kennen und wurde mit maximalem Grusel belohnt.

Ich finde Einiges an „Dracula“ sehr gelungen, insbesondere das Opening fand ich extrem gruselig gemacht. Dadurch, dass wir es mit einem Briefroman und in der Folge mit interner Fokalisierung zu tun haben, bekommt man als Leserin den maximalen Horror ab, denn sind wir ehrlich: Die Protagonisten - an der Stelle tatsächlich die Männer - wissen wirklich nicht, was sie da tun und wie sie dem Unheimlichen begegnen sollen.

Ich könnte mich jetzt über den unfassbar dummen Chauvinismus aufregen, aber an dem kommt man in (früheren) Vampirgeschichten wohl auch nicht ganz vorbei. Was die Expertin dazu sagen wird, erfahren wir wohl beim Lesekreis. Außerdem sorgt der Chauvinismus ja auch an mancher Stelle der Handlung dafür, dass die Ermittlungen tatsächlich nicht vorankommen. Ich gehe aber genau wie Hannah davon aus, dass Henni die Geschichte nicht sonderlich lieben wird.

Kommen wir zu meinem Fazit: Ich habe wirklich nicht damit gerechnet von so viel gut gemachter Spannung erschlagen zu werden, dass ich das Buch beinahe nicht mehr aus der Hand legen konnten. Da merkt man mal den Unterschied zu einem Vampir-Klassiker und „Twilight“ - obwohl eigentlich müsste ich das gerade jetzt im Vergleich mal lesen. Das stelle ich mir sehr witzig vor. Egal, insbesondere die Gruselpassagen, aber auch die Ermittlungsarbeit haben mir sehr viel Lesespaß bereitet. Von daher kann ich „Dracula“ nichts anderes als fünf Sterne geben. Mehr dazu im Lesekreis.

vagrantheather's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous 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? No

4.0

My favorite part is Jonathan Harker's journal at Castle Dracula. I do really like the epistolary storytelling which then circles back around to his girl back home and her friend. The first half of the book was most intriguing, but after that it started to feel a little bit more repetitive. There was never really a good explanation of what made Renfield the way he was (was it really just a psychotic break over the philosophy of life?). Dracula doesn't play a strong part in the second half of the book, he's more of a threat than a developed character. Which is understandable, he is a monster, not a character we're supposed to extend agency to. Naturally I'm more used to contemporary vampire literature, where the vampires are the center of the character, not the aloof villains. Van Helsing was kind of boring, and while I liked the Texan, he was also a little boring and unnecessary. I listened to the John Lee narration and thought he performed impeccably.

All in all it was a very readable classic and I am glad to have read it. I found it more enjoyable than Frankenstein and I do think it still has literary value despite its age.

diogsis's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

Amazing suspense, and the essential vampire novel, a must read for sure.
The way it tells it's story(by diaries, paper, letters, etc) is really innovative for it's time and fits extremely well with the horror theme.

read_n_wright's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

Can definitely see why this is a classic. I listened to this book over two days and was utterly engrossed.

2 things disappointed me though: 1) the sexism but I get that's how things were in that day and 2) the count's death. It was quite anticlimactic despite the journey they undertook to get to him. None of these things ruined to for me. In fact, im even more committed to reading the classics and discovering all the gems, like this one, I'd previously and snobbishly rejected due to them being so old!