\\"You must struggle and strive to live, though death would seem a boon unspeakable.\\" This profound quote from Dracula has truly made me reflect. Did this book just change my life a little bit? Probably. I found myself jotting down so many quotes that I actually spent more time searching for the perfect one than doing anything else for this review.

I was not expecting this. For the first half of the book, I was on the fence. But then, as the second half arrived, I simply could not put it down. This story was about so much more than a vampire. It delved deeper into folklore, fear, and was far more than just a horror story. It was about imagination and how our lives can be enhanced when we embrace possibilities. It showed how being close-minded is equivalent to being nobody at all. And of course, it emphasized how women are smarter and men should always recognize that (I just had to add it).

Bram Stoker, the book community would surely adore you. If only you could come back as a vampire, they're much nicer now than the ones you wrote about then. I absolutely loved the concept, the world-building, and the reality vs. fear mindset. I cherished the fact that we got to witness all aspects of growth in each character, and that there was only one true villain. I love it when people work together without any ulterior motives. It doesn't happen often enough in books. This has officially earned its place on my list of classics that I will happily reread.

Maybe I'll turn into a classics girl after all. And most importantly, Quincey Morris. If you have a thousand fans, I'll be one. If you have a hundred fans, I'll be one. If you have only one fan, that fan will be me. I will love you forever. To get a group of men to believe in the unimaginable, to make speeches of acceptance, willingness to listen, and respect for other people's opinions... you were truly ahead of your time. You were appreciated, but perhaps not enough. I will love you forever. As long as vampires live. And I will always allow my imagination to see beyond what is known.

If you've been thinking about reading Dracula, here's your sign that it's time.

The original article is not provided, so I can't rewrite and expand it specifically. However, I can give you a general example of how to expand an article.

Let's assume the original article is: "The cat is sitting on the mat. It is a black cat."

Here is the expanded version:

The cat is sitting on the mat.

It is a beautiful black cat with shiny fur.

The way it sits there, so calmly and gracefully, is truly charming.

One can't help but be drawn to its presence.

The black color of its fur seems to absorb all the light around it, making it stand out even more.

It looks like a little mystery sitting on that mat, waiting to be discovered.

You can provide the original article, and I will follow your requirements to rewrite and expand it for you.

I highly recommend this book to any fans of the vampire genre.

It is a significant commitment and investment for the reader, but it is truly worthwhile. While Dracula is not the very first vampire novel or story, it has firmly established numerous conventions of the vampire genre. I must state that no movie version I have watched has done justice to this masterpiece. Bram Stoker's Dracula might have been a somewhat faithful rendition, but it took unforgivable liberties with the relationship between Mina and Dracula and downplayed the deep and abiding love between Mina and Jonathan. Additionally, it portrayed Dracula as a seductive, lovelorn, and sympathetic character, which he is not at all. Dracula is a complete and utter fiend, unrelenting in his evil. I spent the entire book eagerly waiting for him to receive his just deserts.

I absolutely love the use of letters and correspondence to tell the story. It added an air of authenticity by revealing the narrative through the written details of events. One might think that this would create a distance between the reader and the story, but surprisingly, it does not. Instead, it infuses the story with a human element as we witness things unfold through the eyes of the humans who experienced everything. Moreover, the diary entries from Jonathan Harker, Mina Murray (soon to be Harker), Lucy Westenra, and John Seward vividly展示 the emotional impact of the characters in the face of the horror of Dracula.

Dracula is very much a Victorian work. It is evident what the mores were at that time while reading this story. It is also clear how society was changing as time advanced towards the 20th Century (this book was published in 1896). The attitudes towards women as sweet, beloved creatures who should be loved and adored are very much in evidence. However, Mr. Stoker took the time to show that Mina has a powerful role and usefulness beyond what was expected of her as a woman of her times. In fact, she plays a pivotal role in this story. Due to the connection between Dracula and herself, she cannot be relegated to a second-class citizen. Her view of the situation reveals much about how Dracula managed to wreak his reign of terror over poor Lucy and how devastated Jonathan was from his early encounter with Dracula. Mina turns out to be a true heroine in this story. She is extremely resourceful, and her methods are of great help in the process of understanding what Dracula is and tracking him down. I felt for her when she was under his thrall, as her love for Jonathan was genuine, as was her abhorrence of the evil of Dracula and how it had affected her. Those scenes added a psychological component to the horror element in this book.

This book is not a non-stop thrill ride. It might be a horror story, but it is also a crime novel in that the group composed of Drs. Van Helsing and Seward, Jonathan and Mina Harker, Quincy Morris, and Arthur Holmwood spend a great deal of time trying to track and defeat their prey, Dracula. Readers should approach this story with this in mind. There are some truly unnerving and scary moments, but they are used to great effect. I would be reading along, and then suddenly something really terrifying would happen. When my heart rate returned to normal and I settled back into the procedural-type narrative, another creepy moment would occur. Thus, my investment of diligent reading paid off, as those scary moments were highly suspenseful.

Readers should also be aware that the characters tend to be somewhat sentimental. They are good, decent people who cry and feel sorrow. The men might be brave, but they are not afraid to break down and sob out their anguish. I admired each of the protagonists that I was supposed to admire: Mina, Jonathan, John/Jack Seward, Van Helsing, Arthur, Quincy, and the poor, unfortunate Lucy. Each of them invests their heart and life into tracking and destroying the beast. This might seem too good to be true for a modern reader, but in the historical context, I had no trouble with it. I might expect different characterizations in a modern vampire novel.

I found that the issues I had with the recent movie adaptations of Dracula did not exist in this novel. Mina is not portrayed as the good, innocent foil for the sexually adventurous and slightly wanton Lucy. Lucy is a sweet girl who was preyed upon and destroyed by Dracula. Mina is not a fickle woman who would abandon her true love for the seductive wiles of the vampire Dracula. That always bothered me about the movies. I didn't see why poor Lucy deserved what happened to her. Even if she had been wanton, I couldn't say she deserved her demise at Dracula's hands. Reading about her decline, death, and resurgence as a vampire was extremely difficult, not to mention the effect it had on the loved ones she left behind. Additionally, I dislike how the love that Mina had for Jonathan is portrayed in the movies. I'm glad it was not this way in the book.

Renfield is a character who has been played for laughs in many of the Dracula adaptations and knockoffs. In the original novel, he is a character to be pitied. He was seduced by Dracula and subsequently lost his reason. There are glimpses of his formerly formidable intellect and sanity, as well as a sense of right and wrong that shone through, causing me to feel sorry for him. Particularly when he warns Seward not to keep him in the Asylum. If only Seward had listened.

Drs. Seward and Van Helsing are physicians and men of science who have a profound respect for each other but tend to look at situations differently. Dr. Seward is a rationalist who tries to approach Lucy's strange illness from a completely scientific perspective, while Dr. Van Helsing is a learned man trained in modern medical science (and a pioneer in medicine) who gives credence to ancient beliefs and whose knowledge is strengthened by his faith in God. The struggle that Seward faces in having to accept that Lucy's demise is due to a powerful supernatural entity is evident as we read his journal entries. Van Helsing is seen through the descriptions in the diary entries of Mina, Jonathan, and Seward. I found Van Helsing to be quite the character. Without a doubt, he's my favorite in this book, although I found some of his lines hard to read because of the fact that it is written as if English was his second language (which it was). He is a man of compassion, although with a tendency towards bluntness. I like that he is able to think his way out of difficult situations but also relies on faith against his demonic enemy.

The movies often emasculate Jonathan, but he is a very strong character who managed to survive his imprisonment in Dracula's castle with his body and sanity intact. His conviction to protect Mina at all costs, despite knowing the depths of the power of his enemy, speaks volumes to me. He might not be a macho man, but he is definitely a worthy mate for Mina.

Arthur Holmwood is a nobleman, yet he is not portrayed as a prig. He is very down to earth and willing to do his part to destroy Dracula and see justice done for his beloved Lucy. I admit I tended to picture Cary Elwes (an old crush of mine who played Holmwood in Bram Stoker's Dracula) about 50% of the time. He definitely rose to the occasion, despite the seemingly insane ravings of Van Helsing about undead creatures and the need to drive a stake through the heart and cut off the head of his beloved.

Quincy Morris embodies the Texan spirit in the very best way. His devotion to Lucy and later Mina causes him to risk his life in the struggle against Dracula.

Don't look for a sexy creature of the night in this book. Dracula is a horrid, evil beast. When he meets his demise, I didn't feel an iota of sympathy. I was cheering instead. It's refreshing to read about an evil vamp without any charisma for once (and this from a paranormal romance fanatic).

This book is a delicious work to have read. I'm glad I attempted it when I could fully appreciate its genius. I freely admit that when I read it in high school, I wasn't ready for it. It took me the better part of the week, but I found myself eager to keep reading, despite the somewhat antiquated language. I wanted to see how things would unfold. You might think, "Well, Dracula is old hat. I've seen many vampire movies. It's all the same." I'd tell you, not so. You should read this book if you're a vampire fan. You will find a resonance that is lacking in most of the modern vampire fare, with its classic setting, genuine characters, and the tangible essence of the unearthly evil of the vampire. And to think that Stoker wasn't quite as glutted on the rich milk of the vampire legends as we modern vamp fans are. Maybe that's why this book felt so authentic to me.

When I engaged in a conversation with my high school English teacher regarding my experience of reading this, and how it contrasted with the racy Canterbury Tales, she offered an erudite and astute observation, stating, "Human nature doesn't change."

This simple yet profound statement has had a significant impact on the literary landscape of horror writing ever since. The work in question is filled with sexual undertones, sensual descriptions, a creepy atmosphere, and remains terrifying even today.

This review, which was published in June 2015, is dedicated to a truly great man, Sir Christopher Lee, who sadly passed away in that same year. Sir Christopher is renowned for his portrayal of Dracula in the 1958 film Horror of Dracula (alongside Star Wars co-veteran Peter Cushing).

May he rest in peace with fair winds and following seas.

There is not much to say. It is a classic and it is a gem!

This statement holds true for many things in life. Whether it's a book, a movie, a song, or a piece of art, a classic has withstood the test of time and continues to shine brightly. It has a certain charm and appeal that transcends generations and cultural boundaries. A gem, on the other hand, is something precious and rare, something that is highly valued and sought after. It is often associated with beauty, quality, and excellence. When we say that something is a classic and a gem, we are acknowledging its significance and importance. We are recognizing that it is not just ordinary, but something truly special. It is a work that has the power to touch our hearts, inspire our minds, and bring us joy and happiness. So, the next time you come across a classic, take a moment to appreciate it for the gem that it is.

I want to conclude the year by reviewing one of my favorite books of the reading year, a book that made me think deeply after reading it. Dracula is a widely known classic story that is engraved in our culture and has inspired numerous works of art. It can be said that we are all attracted to Dracula and vampires in general. What makes this story so appealing to the whole civilization, both in the Victorian era and today? Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897, at the end of the Victorian era. The Victorian era was famous for its progress in science, with people relying on logic and reason to explain how the world functions and liberate us from diseases and suffering. At the same time, strict morality and obedience to social and religious conventions were prominent. Everything that deviated from decency and established values had to be disguised and ruthlessly suppressed to maintain the idea of the progress of civilization. In this era, science and religion worked together to free civilized people from the destructive aspects of nature.

At the same time, there was the rise of gothic literature and the birth of the horror genre, as art emerged from repression. This was the response of romanticism to the age of reason and the Enlightenment, as well as to puritanism and religious austerity that only accepted certain characteristics of people. The gothic genre rose as both a compensation and an exploration of taboos and forbidden topics and impulses. Gothic writers expressed the unconscious preoccupations of the collective - sexual passion, aggression, murder, death, decay, incest, curse, madness. Here, Dracula finds its important place. Dracula is a predator between the world of the living and the inanimate. He has strength and longevity, is immortal as long as he consumes the physical, mental, and life energy of others. In this way, he represents the antithesis and archetypal opposition to Christ, who gives his blood to others so that they can have eternal life. Christ rejuvenates and redeems the body, soul, and spirit, while Dracula is the living dead that curses the body, maddens the soul, and corrupts the spirit. He is a dead creature that has lost its spirit and soul and is therefore not subject to moral and ethical norms and conventions. Through him, we are free to explore taboo and psychoanalytically significant topics: repressed sexuality, oral sadism, and necrophilia. Dracula is the repressed collective darkness in a world enlightened by both reason and Christ.

Dracula has the characteristics of 19th-century villains. He is a stranger, living far away in a foreign land (home and homeland were sacred in the Victorian era). He has bestial elements (pronounced, sharp fangs) and is closely connected with the natural world (he controls the wind and storms and summons wolves). At the same time, he is a mysterious, absent protagonist. Like an optical illusion, Stoker completes him in the mind of the beholder. We learn about him only from the reports of others and their subjective perception. The Count is poorly defined - indefinite, almost intangible. He changes forms, is elusive, connected only with the underworld, seen at night, living in the darkness of the unconscious - he is created from one's forebodings, imagination, and projections. The central part of the story is how correct, moral characters react to him. Jonathan, Lucy, Mina - for each of them, he has a different role, and the multiplicity of his character is evident.

Count Dracula and his brides operate through fascination, seduction, enchantment, obsession, loss of soul, and madness - all dissociation and suppression of consciousness through overbearing unconscious elements. They are a threat from the underworld, a threat to life and the conscious world. The sexual element is prominent and present. We should remember that Dracula visits women at night, where they participate in the exchange of bodily fluids, while the vampire brides are much more explicitly erotic and seductive. Jonathan is a young hero who embarks on a journey into the unknown, a distant castle in "one of the most cruel and least known parts of Europe." This is an area beyond the ordinary, where something unusual will almost certainly happen - "every known superstition in the world is gathered in the horseshoe of the Carpathians, as if it were the center of some imaginative vortex." He is on a heroic journey to the land of the unconscious, where the rules of the rational do not apply and the past, superstitious, irrational, and supernatural still hold power.

"...And yet, unless my senses deceive me, the old centuries had, and have, powers of their own which mere “modernity” cannot kill.” It is important to note that Jonathan is on the verge of maturity. He is engaged, has passed the final exam that qualifies him for the profession, and his boss has expectations, so he has to step into adult roles and responsibilities. Jonathan needs to complete the formation of his ego and adult identity to function in the real world. The moment he meets his shadow in the figure of Count Dracula. Interestingly, the Count does not attack him but only keeps him as a prisoner in his castle - even protecting him from the predatory vampire brides. In Jonathan's case, they are more dangerous than Dracula. They have a greater opportunity to besiege and enchant victims as men, have more open sexual magnetism and predatory sexuality (unlike Dracula, who creates confusion and comes with a deception that is not elaborated). Dracula and the Brides represent the negative counter-sexual aspects that seduce and offer a lot but take autonomy in the process - through enchantment, they capture the person in the unconscious. Here, Jonathan's desire to have sex is transformed into an attack through denial; attraction and love become repulsion and sadism. Repressed sexual desires turn into morbid signals that point to a constant association of sadism and fear - normal sexuality in repression tends to regress to an earlier form, the first of which is oral sadism. The attitude towards vampires represents the aggression, hatred, and fear towards the object of desire that we tend to demonize.

The vampire brides also represent the Madonna-whore complex that is engraved in Victorian society - where a woman being sexual is equated with a woman being demonic and evil. In Jonathan's case, Dracula is a much more concrete character than in, for example, an encounter with Lucy. We get his most detailed descriptions. He is a mature person with whom Jonathan has the most communication and contact. The Count is here in the archetype of the Wise old man who rules a wild, dangerous area, who has knowledge, precision, organization, clarity, and separation - a Logos that protects him from the Eros of women. Let us not forget that Jonathan sees only himself in the mirror when Dracula is behind him, which insinuates that the Count is essentially a part of himself and that realization alone causes disintegration and madness. Lucy is a changeable character, the only one in the novel who was both a human and a vampire, and her physical and mental state fluctuates constantly throughout the story. She is excited and restless; she amuses herself with the erotic possibilities of three husbands and loves the attention of men. In the strict Victorian era, she is conditioned to dissociate her sexual feelings and strong libido from the conscious mind. Her unorthodox desires can find their expression only in altered states of consciousness - trance, sleepwalking, and dreams, all of which precede the Count's attacks.

Lucy is not at peace with herself. She has a somewhat hysterical personality structure with deep internal conflicts. During the day, she has to have the innocence and purity that are mandatory for women in the era, but at night, her restlessness, erotic side of the mind, and sensuality come out. She has an ego/persona imbalance between her real identity and the social role she has to play and is ultimately lost between the night and day, the conscious and unconscious self. In Lucy's case, Dracula is a negative undifferentiated Animus - a seducer, even though the relationship is never shown and she has no memory of him or his form. Dracula is a catalyst for change to the possession of the unconscious. Her conscious ego is afraid of change - she is overwhelmed by unconscious content - the weak ego cannot assimilate the content of the shadow without being overwhelmed by it. Lucy has no positive masculine figures to counter Dracula's erotic animus - only men who are sexually interested in her. Mina is for her Logos - reason, judgment, differentiation. When Mina leaves her, there is no more objectivity or escape from the unconscious eros. Being a divided character, with a weak ego, she succumbs and gives up conscious control, allowing the vampire/unconscious/shadow to dominate. Her ego was challenged beyond what she could handle, and instead of assimilation, it was shattered and destroyed.

Lucy ultimately experiences triumph as a sexualized vampire, taking the blood of more men, a being of flesh, the underworld, and the night - Eros, Id, and the shadow have won and taken over her identity, destroying her conscious will and persona. "She seemed like a nightmare of Lucy as she lay there; the pointed teeth, the bloodstained, voluptuous mouth—which it made one shudder to see—the whole carnal and unspiritual appearance, seeming like a devilish mockery of Lucy’s sweet purity. ” Mina had by far the most successful encounter with Dracula. Mina has mental balance, so she can compensate and integrate the unconscious content presented by a vampire attack. More integrated than Lucy, her sense of self is well developed, and she is well adapted to reality, more firmly rooted in society. She is engaged, has a teaching job, and learns new skills that allow her to maintain an active role even when attacked by Dracula. She wants to be as equal as possible to Jonathan. She is practical, active, brave, and has shown that she can deal with uncertainty, fear, and distress with firmness. Opposite to Lucy, who has a passive role, waiting for a savior, Mina has an active role throughout. She determines her destiny with her abilities. Her sole source of meaning is not sexuality and men, even though she is accomplished through a stable male-female relationship.

Mina has a balance of Eros and Logos; feelings and reason. She is a character who has already progressed on the path of individuation, of formed identity. "That wonderful Mrs. Mina! She has a male brain... and a female heart. ” Although she has done most of the work of synthesizing knowledge about Dracula, she is forced by men to stand aside - they no longer need her, she is too valuable to expose her. Her ability, intellect, curiosity, all of it must be repressed to fulfill the role of an obedient Victorian woman. Mina is forced by men to play the role of a damsel in distress, of a fragile passive woman with which she does not resonate at all. "Even though it was a bitter pill for me to swallow, I couldn't say anything but accept their chivalrous care for me." When Mina has to suppress the authentic parts of herself, her psychic balance is endangered. There she meets her shadow in the Count. But, in Mina's encounter with Dracula, she does not stay unconscious. Van Helsing hypnotizes Mina and extracts the important pieces of information from her subconscious that help to capture and defeat Dracula. Through the conscious exercise of the rational, in a process similar to psychotherapy, awareness of the unconscious manages to outwit and control the unconscious instinct of Dracula.

Mina manages to keep her ego identity but pities and understands the Count - and in him, her own dark and destructive parts that she partially integrates (she is the only character that drinks Dracula's blood). In a way, she feeds off her shadow, but in the process, destroys Dracula's aspects that cannot be integrated, that are ultimately overpowered by the positive aspects of masculine figures in her life. She is, what Campbell calls, the master of both worlds. She has authentic individuality that is connected with the unconscious, even in the darkest realms, but also remains functional and integrated into society that gains from her maturation. Even though the novel is called Dracula, Dracula is not a central figure. Dracula lives in each one of us, representing the otherness - parts of ourselves that are not allowed by society, drives, impulses, and wishes that we cannot admit to ourselves. What Dracula is depends on us - the dark egoistic sadist who feeds on suffering and others' life force, the seductive demonic lover, the wise old man. The sexual libertinism and unbridled violence, emotional, grotesque, irrational - Dracula is in complete contrast to the man of reason and morality, yet so infinitely attractive to him. Dracula is also a Trickster who will appear when we pretend to be something we are not, to unveil hypocrisy and show our true face. Above all, Dracula is elusive and indestructible, the symbol of transformation and initiation into another kind of existence and the constant reminder that if we are looking for Dracula's darkness, we will find it in our own reflection.

The CCLaP 100 is an interesting project where the author reads a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time and then writes reports on whether they deserve the label. In this installment, we look at Bram Stoker's "Dracula" from 1897.

The story of "Dracula" is set in 1897. Young lawyer Jonathan Harker is sent to Transylvania to help Count Dracula transfer property and money to the English legal system. But the Count is not what he seems, and Harker has a series of creepy experiences that culminate in an attack on his life. Dracula then makes a sea voyage to the English coastal village of Whitby, where chaos ensues as he turns young girls into zombie slaves.

The argument for "Dracula" being a classic is strong. It's a fine example of the Romantic/Victorian novel and helped establish the "weird" genre. It also features a complex and unpredictable main female character, Mina Harker. Additionally, it's one of the most adapted stories of all time, with over 100 films and close to 650 movies mentioning vampires in some way.

However, there are also arguments against it being a classic. Critics claim that it's a long and wordy book that can be hard to enjoy as simple pleasure-reading. And with the vampire myth being so well-known today, it holds few surprises for modern readers.

Despite these drawbacks, the author's verdict is that "Dracula" is a classic. It's more modern and complex than many of its contemporaries, with characters that are more developed and a level of gore that has been toned down in later adaptations. While it may have its flaws, it's still a book that is definitely worth your time and attention.

Dracula, the book, truly struck a chord with me. It presented a captivating fight between good and evil that kept me on the edge of my seat. Modern vampires, with their great seduction powers, have never really appealed to me. I also found myself disliking the vampires in many Urban Fantasy books, like The Hollows series that springs to mind. However, the greatest change in the villainous vampires can be seen in Anne Rice's books, which was almost a perfect case study of an idea taken to the extreme.

In Dracula, several people record their impressions. I "pretend" to know that the women in the books, Lucy and Mina, have a similar voice. Maybe the men are slightly different. They possess a greater vocabulary, as seen in Lord Godalming's and Jonathan Harker's recollections. Van Helsing, being a foreigner, has his grammar mistakes, giving him the most unique voice.

Throughout the book, we don't see the vampire Dracula triumph much. Except perhaps when he turns Lucy into an undead. But even then, with the guiding hands and knowledge of van Helsing, she is freed from her shackles. Jonathan escapes from his imprisonment, and the vampire cannot settle in London. He is found out by our "A-team" and has to flee for his life, expressing baffled malignity.

It is a testament to Bram Stoker's neatness that I could follow most of the story. I am in awe of his mind, which chronicles the entire story via journal entries (or phonograph recordings in the case of John Steward), all of which are dated. I don't mean outdated, but dated day after day. And I mourned the death of Quincy Morris, who was gallant to the end, dying with a smile on his lips.

The entire book defies what happens in movies and series (of which I've only watched True Blood). Most people don't read books regularly, so their idea of the vampire comes from horror movies. Boris Karloff and especially Bela Lugosi as vampires are etched in the minds of most people. I don't think cinephiles will get any influence from the 1992 movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola. That was a mess. The book still stands proud, as it should. Thus ends my review on 02 Sep 2018.

Although the beginning of this book is quite exciting,

when Jonathan Harker meets Dracula at the Count's castle in Transylvania,

I felt it could have been shorter.

The remainder of the story gets repetitive and long-winded,

which is the reason why it took me so long to finish it.

Some dialects were difficult to follow,

adding to the challenge of reading.

But most interesting of all was all the weeping and fainting that took place,

and that was just the men!

Many conversations between Seward, van Helsing, Lord Godalming, Morris and/or Harker seemed silly.

Were men that "wussy" in the late 1800's?

I also had to laugh at the blood transfusions.

No worries about blood-type compatibility here!

All in all, being the original vampire story makes it a classic.

Unfortunately, it was not as frightening as I hoped it would be.

Almost every author can be categorized into one of two camps: the active and the reactive. The active author observes the world around them and decides to write about what they see. They sit down and think, "I'm going to write a story, the subtext of which will provide my analysis of Victorian sexual mores." They then construct the story around this theme, creating characters to展示 different aspects and developing a plot that progresses from general observations to specific insights.

On the other hand, there are the reactive authors. These individuals often sit down to write a story without necessarily considering what the characters or story mean. Reactive authors may still touch on the same themes as active authors, but instead of deliberate explorations, we get the author's gut reactions.

In the Late Victorian era, one of the ideas that concerned many authors was the 'New Woman', a proto-feminist. She was active, controlled her own life, regarded marriage as a partnership rather than a master/subservient relationship, took pleasure in her own sexuality, and participated in traditionally male activities such as science, writing, and carousing.

Since Stoker is a reactive author, we do not receive a deliberate analysis of the New Woman. We don't gain an understanding of how she emerged, what drives her or distinguishes her, or what she might signify for the future of sexual politics. Instead, we get the reactive view: a certain excitement in the sexual freedom she represents, but ultimately, she is condemned for being frightening - she is too difficult to control and does not fit in.

The reactive view is模糊的, switching back and forth, never reaching the core of the matter. Stoker includes the New Woman not because he comprehends her, but because she troubles him. This also applies to his other recurring themes: foreign vs. British identity, homosexual and other non-familial desires, scientific innovation, and ancient mysticism.

He includes these elements not because he has some profound insight to reveal to the reader, but because they are concepts he cannot stop bringing up. They are part of his world, and so he portrays them. These depictions change with his reactions: homosexuality is first condemned, then pitied, then enticingly hinted at, and then condemned again.

It is one of many things that Stoker desires to discuss, to puzzle through, something that both intrigues and unsettles him, and which he cannot help but return to whenever he contemplates humanity. It is a habit formed by deep emotional connections and powerful memories. He is迷失在 his former friend Oscar Wilde's grotesque downfall and his lifelong worship of Wordsworth, whose celebration of homosexuality was an open secret.

Unlike Byron, Shelley, and Polidori, who inspired Stoker's tale of Gothic horror, Stoker is unsure of what he thinks about the world he lives in. He does not have a philosophy or a distinct voice; he is just a man attempting to navigate a world that he cannot come to terms with.

This is not an ideal situation for his characters, who must adapt to the changing tides. The only consistent personality is Van Helsing, who is too ridiculous and over-the-top to be lost in the text. The others all swing from one extreme to the other: now subverting Victorian ways, now upholding them. The longer the story progresses, the more they become a collection of names, losing any distinct identity. Although Stoker works in broad strokes, the characters are not unsympathetic or stupid, but they are there to serve the story, wherever the winds may blow.

Dracula, himself, is mostly absent. Our heroes attempt to create an identity for him with their fears and assumptions, but none are very certain that their assumptions about Dracula are correct. They point out several times that their own violent hunt for the count is not terribly civilized or sane, and may not be any more justified than Dracula's own need to feed. What propels them forward each time is their own self-righteousness - but coming from such scattered, unsure characters, it is hardly a convincing justification.

There is a great deal of flexibility in reactive books because there is no distinct core to the story, no central philosophy driving it - which appeals to a certain type of academic. Stoker touches on most of the controversial topics of his day, but never creates any definitive view of them. Things are truly open to interpretation, and the critical works in this collection take full advantage of this.

First, Dracula is seen as homosexuality, then he represents a gender switch, then he is the capitalist monopoly that destroys fledgling British Utopian Socialism - and certainly, all these are unconscious influences on Stoker, but it is too much to say that Dracula is any one of them. He is a collection of fears, insecurities, desires, and popular topics that Stoker throws in as they occur to him.

Most of the critics seem to recognize that Stoker was no great thinker - just an average, well-off, educated man with some talent for flowing prose. Given this, it seems foolish for them to declare that one argument or another fundamentally sums up the text. Many believe that a declarative style lends strength to a somewhat模糊的 analysis, but as a New Historicist, I prefer that the critic give the author only as much credit as seems warranted.

That isn't to say that there isn't a great deal to be learned about the period from Stoker - indeed, his insecurity often reveals much more than he intends - but we can only learn as much as we might from talking to the average man of the period, as opposed to studying the expert opinion of an 'active' author.

As a story, it is entertaining, and the reader may be surprised at how different the original vampire is from the one we are now familiar with. There are some aspects of the book that I think would be interesting to see in film, but there are also many other winding, long-winded passages that are better left out. The book progresses rather slowly in the middle, maintaining roughly the same conflict with no new developments, and we are reduced from several different epistolary views to a more or less streamlined, neutral voice as the bland heroes become more uniformly alike.

The conclusion is rather abrupt, and we never get to a real showdown to match all the buildup of Dracula's many-faced evil, but this makes sense. Since Stoker is unsure precisely what he means to convey with his book, we can hardly expect him to create a viable, satisfying conclusion. The ending is certainly final, but it is not a decisive advance on the book's themes, but a safe retreat to normalcy.

As all horror authors must, Stoker draws on his own fears and insecurities to drive his story forward, but he is not a self-reflective man, so when it comes time for an ending, he instinctively rejects all of the模糊 things that unsettle him, attempting to eliminate them suddenly and violently, as befits a man who is out of ideas.

And so, the showdown that the story deserved is absent - we never face Dracula in his own domain, under his own power. His dark castle remains closed, and the mystery of who he was and what motivated him is left unresolved. Due to one of the many small errors that pervade Stoker's text, even the conclusion can be called into question.

Although we are assured that life has returned to normal, that things are now safe again for the straitlaced Victorian family - that homosexuality, feminine power, foreign influence, and pagan mysticism have all been eradicated - the assertion rings hollow because Stoker never confronts any of these fears. He never manages to address them with the right tools to overcome them.

In the end - and as we always suspected - Dracula is simply too pervasively perverse for the upright Victorian man to kill, because as an average Victorian man, Stoker simply doesn't know where to strike. Like too many conservative thinkers, he has cultivated his own naivete through avoidance until he cannot understand how to oppose his enemy.

So Dracula lives on in our world, growing in power, his vast array of subversive powers strengthening with time. He withstands the full force of Victorian ideals, then outlasts them, watching them crumble. It shouldn't have been a surprise: as Byron, Polidori, and Shelley all hinted, it wasn't Dracula who was the myth, but Victorian morality. It isn't heroic to oppose sex and death; it is tragic: strike them as hard and as often as you like, then watch them rise again. And so Dracula does.

This is just a good ole' fashioned, fun, vintage horror story.

As you embark on reading it, you'll soon discover how countless books, movies, and other interpretations of vampires have drawn inspiration from this very tale.

The dialogue, especially that of Van Helsing, has a tendency to go on and on at times. But perhaps, as a highly intelligent character, this was Stoker's intention.

Moreover, the portrayal of women in the story is a bit outdated by today's standards.

Nevertheless, when considering the story as a whole, it is undeniably a well-crafted and expertly executed classic.

It has stood the test of time and continues to captivate audiences with its spooky atmosphere, engaging plot, and memorable characters.

Whether you're a die-hard horror fan or simply looking for a thrilling read, this vintage horror story is sure to satisfy.

So, grab a copy, turn off the lights, and prepare to be transported into a world of vampires, mystery, and terror.

I’ve read this brooding darkness-in-the-corners Victorian Era classic several times, and it never fails to send shivers down my spine and chill the blood - whatever blood I may have left in my body.

The women/brides of Dracula, who lurk and hover over their intended victim in the mansion, always manage to enthrall, entice, and tantalize. I’m truly surprised that Bram Stoker felt free enough to pen such intense sensuality given the highly censorious times he lived in.

Another aspect that has crossed my mind is that I’m now more circumspect about who I recommend this book to. I once encouraged a registered nurse in our medical unit to read the novel, and I guess she thought it would be like Twilight or something of that nature. Anyways, it completely freaked her out, haunted her, and gave her nightmares. This book has a way of stealthily sneaking into your imagination and sinking its teeth in. It’s truly a tour de force, but it’s as dark as the witching hour of three in the morning.

I’m well aware that others find it slow-paced. Well, it’s Victorian Gothic after all. If you’re not into the creepy atmosphere and the nuances of 19th century Gothic literature, then I really don’t know if this book will work for you.