The start of the story was indeed captivating. However, around the halfway mark, after one of the main characters met their untimely demise, it devolved into what could be described as the 19th century equivalent of a series of never-ending conference calls, all centered around the question of how to destroy Dracula.

The start was intriguing enough but around halfway, after one of the main characters died, it’s just the 19th century equivalent of conference call after conference call on how to destroy Dracula
How can woman help loving men when they are so earnest, and so true, and so brave! And, too, it made me think of the wonderful power of money!

Contrary to my initial expectations, Dracula wasn't as terrifying as I'd thought. In fact, the book had a somewhat soap opera-like quality. The friends of Lucy were constantly thwarted in their attempts to protect her, and Renfield's repeated escapes from the mental asylum added to this feeling. The structure of diary entries, telegrams, and letters also lessened any potential tension, as it was clear that the writers had survived to tell the tale. For those who are curious but find 400 pages of Victorian fiction a bit overwhelming, the 1992 film available on Netflix is quite faithful to the book and makes for a good choice for a spooky October night.

What I did appreciate and found somewhat chilling were the passages描述 the boat Demeter losing its crew, isolated and helpless in the middle of nowhere. The concept of sleepwalking also tapped into some deep-seated unconscious fears. Chapter XXV, with the mind connection between one of the characters and Dracula, strongly reminded me of the link between Harry and Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
But overall, there wasn't much in the book that truly qualified it as a horror novel.

It wasn't until about halfway through that the pace picked up a little, with four blood transfusions (I hope the patient was bloodtype O) and four burials in just a few chapters. But after that, the book陷入了 endless的讨论 about how to defeat Dracula, bringing together facts that the reader already knew and some rather questionable decisions by Van Helsing to withhold information from the group.

In general, Bram Stoker's writing was quite accessible, but it also felt overly dramatic and lacking in subtlety. The themes and moral were straightforward: at the center was the idea that the male forces of science (Dr Seward), aristocracy (Arthur), practical Americans (Quincy), and spiritual Dutch lyricism (Van Helsing) were necessary to face a threat. They even compared themselves to Crusaders, going to the East to destroy Evil.
The girl with the "man brain" (When most we want all her great brain which is trained like man’s brain, but is of sweet woman) was ignored and excluded after she had helped them, and the brave men conveniently ignored all the signs, simply to move the plot towards its all-too-obvious climax.

Interestingly, for a book written around 1900 in the decidedly post-Enlightenment era, religion and class society played a significant role. One of the men, a Lord, was able to get anything he needed done with ease, including obtaining client records and breaking into places, while everyone else was constantly bribed for information.

In the end, I found that in the Appendix of the Penguin Clothbound edition I read, Charlotte Stoker (Bram Stoker's mother) wrote much more eloquently about the terror of a Cholera epidemic than her son did in the entire book about the supernatural. Those few short pages had a strange resemblance to the later The Plague by Albert Camus, while Dracula itself felt more like the overly dramatic, contrived, and convoluted Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë.

Dracula is truly a timeless MASTERPIECE. It's one of my very favorite novels of all time, and yet, believe it or not, I'm still unable to review it. I annotated my most recent reading, hoping it would assist in composing my final thoughts. Alas, what I'm really struggling with is the idea of little ole' me'reviewing'a masterpiece. I guess my goal is more to compel people to pick up this amazing piece of world literature and give it a shot, rather than providing an in-depth analysis of Stoker's work. We all know that in reality, a full review will probably never come. Regardless, take a look at this The Lost Boys gif, a movie greatly inspired by Dracula. Full review or not, I'm so happy to have reread this for the third time. Dracula is a book I will continue to reread periodically for the rest of my life. If you haven't read it yet, please give it a go. It may surprise you. You might think you know this story, but there's so much more to discover within its pages.

Dracula has captivated readers for generations with its thrilling plot, memorable characters, and atmospheric setting. It's a classic that continues to stand the test of time.

So, don't hesitate. Pick up a copy of Dracula and embark on a journey into the world of vampires and horror. You won't be disappointed.

The vampire novel is truly a classic that has haunted our collective experience. It has left an indelible mark on our cultural consciousness.

Whenever I think of Dracula, the image of Bela Lugosi immediately springs to mind. It is one of those images that have been branded deep into my mind.

So many memories of Halloween are connected with Dracula type costumes. The allure of the vampire, with its mystery and darkness, has captured the imagination of countless people.

This book has made such a profound impression on so many individuals. It has the power to transport readers to a world of horror and excitement.

For all these reasons, I give this vampire novel my highest recommendation. It is a must-read for anyone interested in the genre or in exploring the darker side of human nature.

Now I truly understand why this book is such an iconic and influential one.

At first, I had the impression that it might be a rather difficult read, considering the way it is presented through the journals and letters written by the main characters. However, to my surprise, it flowed extremely easily.

The story was filled with intense suspense, constantly keeping me on the edge of my seat and making me always curious about what was going to happen next.

This book was published in 1897, and yet, it still doesn't seem dated at all. I firmly believe that this is essential reading for horror fans of any generation.

Whether you are a die-hard horror enthusiast or just someone who enjoys a good, thrilling story, this book has something to offer. It has stood the test of time and continues to captivate readers with its unique narrative style and engaging plot.

So, if you haven't already, I highly recommend picking up this book and experiencing the horror and excitement for yourself.

All the plot progresses in a rather plodding manner, and yet, at times, it can be quite amusing. This is my second go at reading it. It's the perfect Gothic thriller to enjoy during the summertime, although it doesn't possess any remarkable style. No, the reason I'm reading it again is for the grisly action and the wonderful scene setting. Take, for example, when Jonathan Harker discovers the Count asleep during the day on a box of dirt. What a strange and creepy image! There is a great deal of over description used throughout the book, which was a common convention of Victorian writing in general. However, this over description makes the scenes extremely effective at times.

I particularly like the scene where the death ship careens into the harbor of Whitby, Yorkshire, during a sudden blow. The ship is completely empty, except for the dead captain/helmsman who is tied to the wheel. Conveniently, he has secreted the ship's log in his pocket, inside a glass bottle. (!) This log reveals the madness that occurred onboard the ship during its voyage from the continent. All fiction, to some extent, is preposterous. And Dracula definitely has its fair share of shameless audacity. It's this combination of elements that makes the book such a captivating read.

Another case of me commencing a review without having the slightest clue about how to rate it. This book was truly a wild ride.

I believe my professor summed it up splendidly when he stated, “Dracula is either really outstanding or truly awful.” Alright, yes, I’m paraphrasing, but only to a small extent.

This book is quite an accomplishment, regardless of the perspective. You can essentially read ANY THEME into this novel: good and evil, race, religion, gender, science, wealth, power, abstinence, war, colonization. There are probably more, but it’s a Monday and I had four consecutive hours of math tonight and I’m extremely sleepy. Anyway, that all sounds great, right? Emma, I envision you saying, what do you mean it could be bad? Look at all those themes! It’s perhaps the great Irish novel! I understand, imaginary reader. I hear you. But there are aspects of this book that are even stranger than that quasi-sex scene. (The joke is that you can’t determine which one. There are countless symbolic moments of characters getting intimate. Truly astonishing.)

BUT OKAY. It’s not merely that there are a bazillion themes. Because that would be cool. No, it’s that you can make an argument for either side of every theme. Sexist or feminist; condemning religion or supporting it; racist or accepting; and so on and so forth. The book is also simply filled with elements like repetition that can either be thematically significant or just a poor job. (Can you picture being the editor of this book? “Uh, Bram?…Hey pal. So, you use essentially the same passage describing Dracula’s powers three times in one chapter, so – I was, you know, wondering – are you a genius or a complete idiot?” If I fulfill my dream of becoming an editor/publisher, I’m only editing YA. It’s too terrifying.)

The upside of all this was that this book was an absolute delight to discuss in class. (A significant and f*cking improvement from slogging through the boring old Huck Finn every day for two weeks.) We would spend approximately an hour on a single page, attempting to distinguish sexism from feminism and eagerly seeking homosexual undertones. (OH BOY DID WE FIND THEM, AND OH BOY DID WE LOVE DOING IT.) Anyway. In-depth textual analysis is like, my favorite thing.

This affair was intermittently a blast (oh my god! Vampires were enjoyable even in 1897!) and extremely boring (oh my god. What’s up with the plotlines from 1897). Still, I have to give a lot of credit to this book, because I read it EXCLUSIVELY by forcing myself through it in 110-page chunks during one work-study shift…and I still enjoyed it most of the time. That never occurs! Certainly didn’t happen with Huck Finn.

The characters really weren’t that great, but that often happens with classics. It’s strange that a few of them endured, though. I won’t miss them even if I end up missing reading this. (It’s been a significant part of my life for a while! Okay, like a couple of weeks, but that’s a long time for me.)

But I do think this book is sexist, and I don’t think it’s anywhere near perfect, and there are creepy issues regarding consent and metaphoric sexual assault and gender roles, and I wanted to write a paper on this book being an allegory of the battle between science and religion (religion won, guys!) but was FORCED to write on gender, the most clichéd topic of them all. Still, though, this book made an impression on me. (To clarify, I wasn’t excited that religion won. I’m excited that said conclusion fit with my hypothetical essay.)

Bottom line: I think I liked this? I definitely recommend it. It’s cool to see what initiated (not actually but don’t @ me) all our cultural stuff with vampires. (Still not that into them though. I say while technically currently reading some dumb book about them.)

If I were Bram Stoker, I would remake the old Melanie hit. Remember this one?

Look what they done to my song, ma
look what they done to my song
well it's the only thing that I could do half right
and it's turning out all wrong ma
look what they done to my song

The Count might have sung it as

Uite ce au facut sa ma cantec, mama
Uite ce au facut cintecul meu e singurul
lucru care i s-ar putea face jumatate
dreptate si e intorcandu-se in toate regula mama
uite ce au facut sa ma cintec

Reviewing Dracula in this era of overly sexualized young vampettes and vamparistas is like praising the sexual allure of Clara Bow and Jean Harlow.

Dracula was the first “grown up” book I read. At 12, it was a great choice! It made my heart race and my skin crawl. But I doubt a modern reader would have the same reaction. Poor Dracula, rewritten, cartooned, parodied, and Buffyfied in countless ways. He's undead, but only as a Halloween costume and a footnote in an essay about Stephanie Meyer.

Despite all that, and Stoker's verbose Victorian style, I still give it five stars. It's filled with the sexual hysteria the Victorians loved to write about, from Wuthering Heights to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. They couldn't mention sex directly, so they used language to hint and wink, often talking about purity, chastity, and its opposite. Bosoms were okay, but anything below the waist was off-limits, except for shapely ankles and well-turned feet. You can see they were desperate to write about sex, and Bram Stoker found vampires as a metaphor. The sexual dread that fills Dracula is like a thick London fog, and it's all about seduction. That's what Stoker wanted to write about - seduction and sexual enslavement. Why do good girls fall for bad men? The Count is the ultimate seducer. He comes at night, gets into your fiance's bedchamber, and you have to drive a big phallus through his heart. I get it. Bram Stoker was passionate about all this.

Bram Stoker invented many of the vampire tropes here and included some outrageous scenes. Three beautiful female vampires arguing over a baby in the middle of the night, three men giving a woman a blood transfusion with just a rubber hose, and the Count climbing a castle wall as fast as a man can run. Great stuff!

I say read Bram Stoker, read Let the Right One In, and avoid Twilight.

Yesterday I completed reading Bram Stoker’s Dracula. It was a wonderful experience as I read it with a group of friends on Goodreads, and we all finished on the same day. What's more, we all began on May 3rd, and hundreds of people around the world did the same.

In case you think that spending 6 months on one novel is a long time and that this is a peculiarly specific time frame, I should probably explain.

If you have read Dracula, you may well remember that it is an epistolary novel. It consists of letters, diaries, telegrams, and newspaper clippings, and every part has a date. The entire story takes place between May 3rd and November 10th, over one year (apart from a sort of coda, which is 7 years later). Have you guessed yet?

We have all been part of “Dracula Daily”, a project that sorts the book into strict chronological order and sends the daily entries by email as they occur. It is a kind of “real time” read. So, if someone is imprisoned in a castle for months, you have the authentic sense of time passing and might know what the other characters are doing on exactly the same day. You might also read one short 3-line telegram one day and have 4 or 5 long diary entries to read on another day, sometimes telling the same events from multiple perspectives. There are also days when nothing happens, with the longest stretch being a fortnight or more.

Does it work? Yes, quite a few of us read the whole novel this way. But I have to say that it is impossible to compromise. Back in May, I thought I would wait to see which part of a chapter was due that day, only to find that some parts were skipping ahead, some paragraphs apparently missing, and others backtracking according to the written order. In fact, all the text is there, but I had to stick to the prescribed content. This means that I would now like to read the novel again, in Bram Stoker’s original order, perhaps in a couple of years’ time.

As I said, following the true timeline adds a kind of authenticity to the feeling of time passing, but it means that it is impossible to judge how well the novel itself is paced. Besides the incarceration I mentioned, another part that seemed far too slow was the time spent on a ship at the other end of the novel. Other sections that I might have preferred to dwell on felt a little rushed.

On the other hand, I think a slow read benefited this novel. I tend to like horror stories that slowly inculcate fear, chilling and terrifying me by making me conjure up demons in my own imagination. The master of classic creepy tales for me is M.R. James’s insidious and atmospheric prose, rather than Edgar Allan Poe’s explicit descriptions. Of Dracula, M.R. James specifically said that it was: “a book with very good ideas in it, but—to be vulgar—the butter is spread far too thick. Excess is the fault here”.

I can see that compared with M.R. James’s subtly understated chills, Bram Stoker’s prose could seem overblown. Reading the novel slowly seems to decrease the sense of melodrama and increase the excitement and threat factor. And it has to be acknowledged that Dracula is the novel that has spawned the plethora of vampire fiction ever since. There were other incarnations earlier, from 18th-century poetry to Sheridan Le Fanu’s tale “Carmilla”, but it’s a fairly safe bet that anyone you ask to name the most famous classic vampire story will say Dracula (which was written in 1897). The two words have become almost synonymous.

Dracula simply has to be a 5-star story. And if you too would like to try reading in “real time” starting next May, it does seem to be an annual event if you google: “Dracula Daily”.

No sé cuantas páginas tiene la edición original, ya que leí una versión algo resumida. Pero, según la introducción, decía que sólo habían sacado unos pequeños detalles y los más difíciles de entender para que la lectura no se haga tan pesada. Dicho esto, la historia en sí es excelente y muy original para la época. Me imagino a la gente de antaño leyendo esto a la luz de las velas. Si yo fuera ellos, estaría más que un poco asustado.

La historia en general ya se conoce, es cultura general. Ya sabía el final y todo, pero quería leerlo todo con detalles para saber el inicio, el medio y el final de todo Drácula. El principio, con Jonathan como gran protagonista me gustó mucho. El libro es muy rápido y dinámico, describiendo al Conde con lo justo y necesario. Sin embargo, cuando él deja de escribir y se centra más en los otros personajes, el libro, a mi parecer, se pone lento y pesado. Mientras organizan la matanza y todo eso, de repente sentí que el libro daba vueltas en círculo. Planearon la "estocada" final durante muchas páginas, pero cuando lo mataron la historia duró media página. Meh.

Algún día me gustaría ser tan culto y listo como Van Helsing, pero lo que no me gustaría es ser tan religioso como él. A veces era un poco patético todas las veces que, no solamente Van Helsing, sino que todos, mencionaban a Dios y cosas religiosas demasiadas veces. Como que no pega eso con Drácula. Just saying. En general, libro bueno, un clásico. Vale la pena el tiempo. Historia bastante intensa sobre todo para la época.

Dracula is not just a fictional character but still a real and living presence in modern Romania. There is no experience quite like reading Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula in Romania during the month of October.

During the day, the Transylvanian plains present a tranquil and almost pastoral landscape. One can observe a shepherd and his dog guiding the sheep to their grazing place, or notice the red tassels adorning the horses that pull the carts of Romany farmers. However, the chief danger seems to come from the aggressive drivers one sometimes encounters on Romanian roadways.

But as night falls, a chill descends that seems to penetrate deeper than what the autumn air alone could cause. One recalls the travel-book warnings about not driving in rural Romania after dark. When one finally reaches Sibiu or Brasov, just as the sun is setting, one’s eyes are drawn to the stern and austere beauty of the town’s churches. And then, what was that little creature winging its unsteady way among the lighted steeples?

Bram Stoker knew he had a great story idea. He diligently researched the historical Dracula, who died in 1477. The bloodthirsty Vlad Țepeș or “Vlad the Impaler,” as voivode of Wallachia, committed unspeakable cruelties regularly, earning his nickname as a Drăculești or Dracula, Romanian for “son of the dragon.” Vlad Dracula’s atrocities were so outrageous that he became linked with the abundant vampire folklore of Eastern Europe. And 400 years later, Bram Stoker introduced Dracula to the world.

The power of Dracula lies in its characterization, especially that of the title character. Stoker introduces him as first seen by Jonathan Harker, a young English solicitor. Dracula is a tall old man, clean-shaven except for a long white moustache, clad in black. His face is strong and aquiline, with a high-bridged thin nose, peculiarly arched nostrils, a lofty domed forehead, and scant hair around the temples but profuse elsewhere. His massive eyebrows almost meet over the nose, and his bushy hair seems to curl. The mouth, hidden under the heavy moustache, appears fixed and cruel, with sharp white teeth protruding over the lips, which are remarkably ruddy, showing astonishing vitality for a man of his years. His ears are pale and extremely pointed at the tops, the chin is broad and strong, and the cheeks are firm though thin. The overall effect is one of extraordinary pallor.

Dracula is such a powerful character that from the moment we first see him through Jonathan Harker’s eyes, he can vanish from the novel for almost 250 pages, only seen as a bat, a wolf, a wisp of fog, yet still loom over the novel as a dominating presence. From his initial conversations with Harker, Dracula shows his pride in his aristocratic heritage and his disdain for the common people.

The impeccable manners Dracula displays at first quickly give way to an unconcealed disdain for human beings in general. Once he has successfully arranged to be transported from his Transylvanian homeland to England, one senses that a struggle for the future of humanity has begun.

Other characters are also skillfully sketched. Jonathan Harker is a suitable protagonist, a smart and likeable young man imprisoned in Dracula’s castle, who must use his wits to survive. Later in the novel, it is painful to watch him age prematurely as the vampire attacks the woman he loves. Van Helsing, the great scientist with expertise in both the natural and supernatural, also draws the reader’s interest and admiration.

I have always found it unfortunate that some readings of the novel view Lucy Westenra as the “bad” girl who succumbs to Dracula’s advances because she “deserves” it, while Mina Murray-Harker is the “good” girl who survives because she is more “virtuous” and “deserving” of a happier fate. This is far from the truth. Both characters are likeable young women, and Lucy is only guilty of being popular.

Because Lucy is a good person, it is all the more heartbreaking to watch the long struggle for her life and soul between Van Helsing and Lucy’s four suitors on one side and the implacable Dracula on the other. A couple of unfortunate twists of fate make the outcome of Lucy’s struggle even more tragic. And then one senses more strongly what is at stake as the vampire turns his diabolical attentions toward Mina.

I have not yet discussed the importance of the novel’s structure. Stoker unfolds the grim story of Dracula through journals, newspaper clippings, letters, diaries, phonograph recordings, and the like. This epistolary, documentary quality adds to the novel’s power and makes its bizarre events seem more real.

There are good reasons why this is one of the best-loved and most influential novels in literary history. If you have never read it, do so; if you have read it, read it again. Dracula will wait for you. He has all the time in the world.

Dracula is a classic that I approach with a certain amount of trepidation. I always worry about encountering an overly dense text. So, the first pleasant surprise I had with Dracula was how quickly it reads. Stoker's way of telling the story seems simple, but in a good way. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the epistolary format, and Stoker handled it perfectly. However, in my opinion, there are a few flaws that I will explain later.

The novel has surprised me positively in many ways. Despite its great fame, it also has many detractors who have found it boring and heavy over the years. In my case, I found it very entertaining, and the nearly 600 pages of my edition did not feel burdensome at any point. In fact, I enjoyed many aspects of it.

One of the things I liked most is the atmosphere. It reflects that eerie something throughout the novel, without flagging, and that is worthy of mention. Another wonderful point is everything related to vampire folklore. Although there are things that are now obvious to us in the vampire world, Stoker gives a reality to all these details, which at the time must have been quite a novelty. The invisibility in front of mirrors, the vulnerability to garlic and religious symbols, the stake through the heart and decapitation, the transformation into a bat or the control of time and other animals, are all part of what we know today about vampires, but at that time it must have been a surprise. Even I, a big fan of vampires, had some surprises.

I also think that, although Stoker was not the first to write about vampires and there are previous and very good stories like Carmilla or Manor, if I consider that Stoker made it more complex. However, the detail of finding sexually ambiguous or differently sexual vampires in previous stories and then seeing that Dracula only deigns to bite women seems outdated to me and, probably, a reflection of Stoker's personality.

Then there are two things that really bothered me and made me feel that the book is not perfect. The first is that Dracula appears very little or almost not at all. "Pursuing Dracula" would have been a more appropriate title. Perhaps the epistolary format did not allow for him to appear more, but that does not justify an ending in which he appears so little. It is interesting to see how Dracula is always lurking and how that creates that tense atmosphere, but he could have appeared a little more. A few more pages at least.

The other thing that bothered me a lot is the continuous reiteration, practically on every page, of sexist comments where women are considered liars, unworthy or weak, always being compared to male goodness and strength. I know that many people think that everything is justified by the era in which the author wrote, but I am very opposed to that idea. One can be progressive or conservative in each era and within their context. Obviously, I cannot expect Stoker to talk to us about the female lawyer or the female president, but can he imagine vampires who control wolves and not imagine a strong woman shooting a gun and not fainting every 30 seconds? I have read authors before Stoker or who wrote in the same era, who already contemplated the situation of women and their right to independence. The book is from 1897, almost the 20th century, not the 14th century. And I repeat that the problem is not that there was some sexist comment, that is always expected with something more classic, but that there are hundreds. Especially from the mouth of Van Helsing or Lucy.

And it makes me even more indignant when I think that, precisely, for me the most interesting character is Mina. The one who seemed the most intelligent to me from the beginning and who in some way serves as a guide to the others and could have been a much stronger character if the men she was with did not belittle her every two pages. And it has made me a bit angry that Stoker created such an interesting character and left her unfinished. Not even the cinematic adaptations have treated the character of Mina well.

In conclusion, despite the things that I did not like and that dampened my enthusiasm a bit, I really enjoyed Dracula. Much more than I expected. I thought it read easily and that it serves as a foundation for the figure of the vampire, which although not new, he finally gave shape to and that is something to be valued. So I highly recommend it. I want to read something else by Stoker, and I think it will be "Midnight Tales".

I expected it to be gayer tbh. To be honest, I had this anticipation that it would be more lively, more colorful, and more filled with a sense of celebration. I thought there would be more excitement in the air, perhaps some bright decorations, and a general atmosphere of merriment. Maybe there would be people dancing, laughing, and having a great time. But as it turned out, it wasn't quite as gay as I had hoped. There was still some fun to be had, but it didn't reach the level of gaiety that I had imagined. Nevertheless, I tried to make the most of it and enjoy the moment for what it was.