Dracula

by Bram Stoker

Dracula, published in 1897, is the most famous of all tales of vampirism. Presented in diaries, letters and news items, this story of the bloodsucking vampire who preys on the living and can be repelled by garlic, crucifix and a wooden stake is both terri

Genres: Classics, Horror, Fiction, Fantasy, Gothic, Vampires, Audiobook

376 pages, Paperback

First published May 26, 1897

About the author

Irish-born Abraham Stoker, known as Bram, of Britain wrote the gothic horror novel Dracula (1897).

The feminist Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornely Stoker at 15 Marino crescent, then as now called "the crescent," in Fairview, a coastal suburb of Dublin, Ireland, bore this third of seven children. The parents, members of church of Ireland, attended the parish church of Saint John the Baptist, located on Seafield road west in Clontarf with their baptized children.

Stoker, an invalid, started school at the age of seven years in 1854, when he made a complete and astounding recovery. Of this time, Stoker wrote, "I was naturally thoughtful, and the leisure of long illness gave opportunity for many thoughts which were fruitful according to their kind in later years."

After his recovery, he, a normal young man, even excelled as a university athlete at Trinity college, Dublin form 1864 to 1870 and graduated with honors in mathematics. He served as auditor of the college historical society and as president of the university philosophical society with his first paper on "Sensationalism in Fiction and Society."

In 1876, while employed as a civil servant in Dublin, Stoker wrote a non-fiction book (The Duties of Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland, published 1879) and theatre reviews for The Dublin Mail, a newspaper partly owned by fellow horror writer J. Sheridan Le Fanu. His interest in theatre led to a lifelong friendship with the English actor Henry Irving. He also wrote stories, and in 1872 "The Crystal Cup" was published by the London Society, followed by "The Chain of Destiny" in four parts in The Shamrock.

In 1878 Stoker married Florence Balcombe, a celebrated beauty whose former suitor was Oscar Wilde. The couple moved to London, where Stoker became business manager (at first as acting-manager) of Irving's Lyceum Theatre, a post he held for 27 years. The collaboration with Irving was very important for Stoker and through him he became involved in London's high society, where he met, among other notables, James McNeil Whistler, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In the course of Irving's tours, Stoker got the chance to travel around the world.

The Stokers had one son, Irving Noel, who was born on December 31, 1879.

People cremated the body of Bram Stoker and placed his ashes placed in a display urn at Golders green crematorium. After death of Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, people added his ashes to that urn. Despite the original plan to keep ashes of his parents together, after death, people scattered ashes of Florence Stoker at the gardens of rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Stoker

Reviews

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Shockingly, not a whole hell of a lot of vampire stuff up in this bitch.
Mostly, it read like a dull travelogue with lots of emotions.
Bro love everywhere.
All the men loved all the women (platonically or otherwise) to the point they were willing to give their lives for whichever lucky lady was Dracula's snack at the time.
It was quite the love fest.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I'm buying that, Stoker.



And Dracula?
Not since Gary Oldman's beehived old woman portrayal have I been less scared of this character.


Welcome to my home. Allow me to get you some Entenmann's coffee cake whilst you peruse my garage sale knick-knack collection and trip over my cats...

So, I've come to realize that very few of the classic characters or stories even remotely resemble what you think they will based on their modern counterparts. And in my uneducated opinion, most classics just aren't all that much fun to read. They're boring and filled up with tedious shit that I don't care about, and certainly don't want to read about. <-- Scenery, weather, random feelings about the scenery or weather, etc.
I guess back in the day it was high fun to take walks, look at the landscape, and then go back home and write about it in your diary. And while I'm sure that sounds like heaven to some people who yearn for simpler times, the idea of reading about the nonsense of someone else's daily life makes me want to scratch my eyes out.



Something I was surprised by, although in retrospect I shouldn't have been, was all the religious undertones in the story. Ok, yes. I knew Dracula was evil and couldn't be near crosses and whatnot, but I didn't think about this being a casually religious story about saving souls from damnation.



Which, I mean, it's not like it was any fault of the vampires that they were dammed. At one time or another, they had all been humans who were targeted by another vampire as a snack. Vicious cycle and all that.
And poor Lucy seemingly ended up a chew toy simply because she was a sleepwalker.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that you need to make sure you aren't wandering around on moors at night so you don't get spotted by anemic monsters?



Speaking of Lucy, did anyone else notice how incredibly fucking lucky she was that every single guy in their group was a compatible blood type for her? All those blood transfusions! None of them even remotely hygienic or safe.
Forget supernatural demons who turn into bats - those transfusions were the scariest shit in this entire book.



Brace yourself, because there are a lot of characters and POV switches. Again, most of what they were saying wasn't all that interesting, so it made me doubly happy that I decided to go with the audiobook version of Stoker's tale.



And if I'm being 100% honest here, I probably zoned out a few times and daydreamed about when I needed to get the oil changed in my car or what we were having for dinner. But this is one of those books with a lot of superfluous information, so I don't think it hurt anything. I got the gist of it all okay without hanging on every word.



Fair warning, the first half of this book is unbelievably dull.
Mina writes in her diary about how she frets over Jonathan's lack of letters from Transylvania & how hard it is to keep Lucy from wandering out the door at night, Lucy gets mysteriously ill & her fiancé gets worried, and the doctor dude (John Seward) moons over Lucy & watches one of his psychotic patients eat bugs.
Renfield, being the only character in the book who doesn't want to talk about friendship & loyalty every five minutes, was by far my favorite.



The second half of the book was only slightly more engaging to me, but at least there was a bit of urgency to it at that point. Van Helsing was on to Dracula, so garlic was being thrown over everything, stakes were being handed out like candy, and anything pertinent was being kept from Mina so as not to upset her delicate sensibilities.
And then when that backfired spectacularly, they cut her into the loop, and she was able to do an old-timey version of what a competent woman looked like. They even compared her brain to that of a man! <--I love these old books. Really.



And what about Dracula?
Well, he was sort of this shadow figure that lurked around the edges of the book. You never really meet him. I know, right?! What about the whole Vlad the Impaler thing? How he fixated on Johathan & Mina for some reason?
Buzzz! Nope.



Ok, get this: Dracula had been sort of like a special needs zombie who was finally learning stuff - like math...and how to employ minions to carry his dirt around for him. Apparently, up to this point, he had just been harassing his neighbors and nibbling on Romanian women. This whole thing with Lucy & Mina was supposed to be his bid at going global.
Thank god for Van Helsing and his wacky foreign-man knowledge of urban legends.



I guess one of the oddest things that I realized about this horror story was that when Lucy & Mina started turning toward the dark side, they got sexy.
Yeah. Like, that was how you could tell they were creatures of the dammed. The men got all freaked out and weepy because their sweet, mild-mannered ladies lost their wholesome looks. They became wanton hussies with throaty voices and pouty lips.
Holy shit, right? If that doesn't say something about how wackadoo things used to be, I don't know what will.
Innocence or else!



Anyway. This wasn't really a fun read, but I'm glad I can finally say I've managed to put it behind me. Plus, it's one of those weird little windows into the past that reminds you things aren't as bad as they could be. I'd definitely recommend listening to the audio version with Tim Curry & Alan Cumming if you decide to go that route. The entire voice cast of this one really helped make it palatable for someone like myself who doesn't have the fortitude to read classics on their own.
Recommended for fans of vampire travelogues.

[Elle (ellexamines on TT & Substack) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find Victorian horror so interesting as a microcosm of reaction to social norms of the time, to the buttoned-down and repressed social climate of the time, to the “new moral standards” of the church and the new questions brought up and hidden away by scientific thought. But under the fabric of late Victorian society lay wide ranges of change; the increased marriage rate and idea of the domestic sphere for women giving way to the New Woman, the upper class vs. lower class divide giving way to a new middle class. With the growth of the economy came new ideas of English excellence; with the growth of scientific thought, scientific racism.

Literature, as is usual, struggles to react. With a growing counterculture in literature came the reaction to such; at the trial of author Oscar Wilde, passages from his only novel were read to prove that he liked men. Soon after, Bram Stoker, formerly his acquaintance, began writing Dracula.

The result is a book drenched in fear of the unknown: In xenophobia of the time, in homophobia, and in the anxieties that come when that who embodies both appears. That is what sticks with me, to this day, about Dracula.

Blog | Goodreads | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two things about this book:

1. It is a really great and creepy story that deserves classic status
2. Everything is repeated soooooo much without any obvious benefit.

Here is actual footage of Bram Stoker writing this novel:



If Stoker had just got to the point, this book would have been much more exciting and suspenseful. I understand the exact same mysterious thing happens night after night. I understand that Dracula has some boxes of dirt. I get that you brought Winchester rifles along for protection. Each of these things was repeated ad nauseam throughout the book. Talk about killing the pace - by the time the gruesome scares came I was very disengaged.

Also, funny thing about this book as a horror story - it must be the grandfather of heading up the stairs to hide instead of running outside or cutting through the graveyard shortly after hearing a serial killer is loose. They keep leaving people alone even though those people are repeatedly attacked when they are left alone. Then, when they finally insist on guarding someone, that person insists that they need no one but God to guard them!? Seems like so far God had not been interested in protecting, so why count on him starting now!?

So three stars because it is a classic and I like the story. I especially like Lucy's suitors - their gung ho manliness amuses me. But the repetition and the illogical behavior in the face of a bloodsucking monster are the cause of the removal of a couple of stars.

[Jonathan Terrington · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dracula: the very name instantly brings to mind visions of vampires, stakes, garlic, and crucifixes. Yet, when one bothers to read the novel, it becomes self-evident how twisted modern vampire fiction now is.

Vampires are not meant to inhabit the roles of heroes. Go back a few hundred years and men believed truly that the vampire was a real immortal, cursed to quench his undying thirst with a living mortal’s blood. The very idea of a blood drinker should, therefore, inspire the image of a villain within the mind. And that is what the titular character of this novel is.

The word novel is not used lightly, as one could also write that this is a collaboration of journals, letters and papers. For that is how Bram Stoker chose to fashion his famous novel (in epistolary form). While the different viewpoints through each journal serve to create suspense which suits the gothic tone of the novel perfectly.

In all, it is a macabre novel that serves to make the reader reflect upon good and evil. The vampire, to me, is nothing more than an indication of man’s cursed nature. Who, unless he is delivered, must suck the life from others around him. Ultimately only the righteous can destroy the darkness that serves to drain life. That is the lesson which Bram Stoker's timeless classic unswervingly conveys.

[S.A. Parham · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was rather disappointed by this classic. It started out with promise, especially the Jonathan Harker bits. Then all the male characters descended into blubbering worshippers of the two female characters, and by the end of the novel, I was wishing Dracula could snack on all of them and be done with it. I kept having to put it aside and read chapters in between other books, but I managed to finish it at last.

[Federico DN · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a Leech!

London, 1890s. Jonathan Harker returns from Transylvania, a series of bizarre incidents start taking place all around Whitby soon after. Worst of all, a strange malady seems to be slowly draining the life out of the helpless Lucy. Mina, her most trusted friend, unable to help her. After some investigations it’s concluded the deed to be the sole work of a mysterious figure of the night, none other than Count Dracula himself. Jonathan Harker, Mina’s fiancé, and Professor Van Helsing, the only ones that may be able to stop him, once and for all.

This is IT! The original work, the mother of all bloodsuckers, the holy grail of vampirism, the genius masterpiece of Bram Stoker that for better or worse spanned an infinity of books, movies, series and any vampire-like machination. The story of the intrepid Jonathan Harker and the delicate Mina, the gentlemanly Arthur and the angelic Lucy, the charismatic Doctor Seward and the wise and audacious Van Helsing. And of course, how to forget him, the all-father of anything undead, the quintessential vampire, the immortal, machiavellian and all powerful Count Dracula. May he rest in peace.

An all-time classic that hardly requires any introduction at all, and a must in life for any bookworm. Not my favorite classic, the pacing sucks, and not exactly easy to read either, but still a better story than Twilight. Recommendable, for the classical nerd.

It’s public domain, you can find it HERE.

*** Dracula (1992) is an acceptable adaptation, reasonably faithful to the original work, but with many deviations, none of them too bothersome. An out of this world cast including stars like Keanu, Wynona, Hopkins, Oldman and Elwes, that sadly didn’t amount to much. Not their best performance at all, and I especially disliked Sadie Frost as Lucy. Some none scripted scenes, awkward atmosphere and pacing, and honestly on the whole a little over the top. Not my favorite film at all; still, decent enough to watch, if only to complement the reading. The book definitely won this round.



-----------------------------------------------
PERSONAL NOTE :
[1897] [488p] [Classics] [Horror] [3.5] [Conditional Recommendable] [Quincey]
-----------------------------------------------

¡Vaya Sanguijuela!

Londres, 1890. Jonathan Harker regresa desde Transilvania, una serie de bizarros incidentes empiezan a surgir por todo Whitby poco después. Lo peor de todo, una extraña aflicción parece estar lentamente drenando la vida de la indefensa Lucy. Mina, su más querida amiga, incapaz de ayudarla. Después de algunas investigaciones se concluye que la obra es el trabajo de una misteriosa figura de la noche, nada menos que el mismísimo Conde Drácula. Jonathan Harker, el prometido de Mina, y el Profesor Van Helsing, los únicos que tal vez puedan llegar a detenerlo, de una vez por todas.

¡Esta ES! La obra original, la madre de todas las chupa-sangre, el santo grial del vampirismo, la genial obra maestra de Bram Stoker que para bien o mal dio nacimiento a infinidad de libros, películas, series, y cualquier maquinación vampiresca. La historia del intrépido Jonathan Harker y la delicada Mina, del caballeroso Arthur y la angélica Lucy, del carismático Doctor Seward y el sabio y audaz Van Helsing. Y por supuesto, como olvidarlo, el padre de todos los no muertos, el murciélago por excelencia, el inmortal, maquiavélico y todopoderoso Conde Drácula. Que en paz descanse.

Un clásico de todos los tiempos que difícilmente requiera introducción alguna. Y un deber para la vida de cualquier nerd de biblioteca. No es mi clásico favorito, el ritmo apesta y no es exactamente fácil de leer tampoco, pero definitivamente una mejor historia que Crepúsculo. Recomendable, para el nerd de los clasicos.

Es dominio público, lo pueden encontrar ACA.

*** Dracula (1992) es una aceptable adaptación, razonablemente fiel a la obra original, pero con varias desviaciones, ninguna de ellas demasiado molesta. Un elenco de otro mundo incluyendo estrellas como Keanu, Wynona, Hopkins, Oldman y Elwes, que tristemente no hizo mucho eco. Lejos de ser sus mejores actuaciones, y especialmente me desagradó Sadie Frost como Lucy. Algunas escenas fuera de guion, rara atmósfera y ritma, y honestamente en su conjunto un poco desmesurada. Para nada mi filme favorito; pero igualmente, suficientemente decente de ver, aunque sea sólo para complementar la lectura. El libro definitivamente ganó esta pelea.



-----------------------------------------------
NOTA PERSONAL :
[1897] [488p] [Clásicos] [Horror] [3.5] [Recomendable Condicional] [Quincey]
-----------------------------------------------

[emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another case of me starting a review with no idea how to rate it. This book was…a ride.

I think my professor put it best when he said, “Dracula is either really good or really sh*tty.” Okay, yes, I’m paraphrasing, but only a little.

https://emmareadstoomuch.wordpress.co...

This book is quite a feat, either way. You can read essentially ANY THEME into this novel: good and evil, race, religion, gender, science, wealth, power, abstinence, war, colonization. More, probably, but it’s a Monday and I had four hours straight of math tonight and I’m sleeeeepy. Anyway, that all sounds peachy keen, right? Emma, I imagine you saying, what do you mean it could be shitty? Look at all those themes! It’s the great Irish novel, maybe! I know, imaginary reader. I hear ya. But there are things about this book that are even weirder than that quasi-sex scene. (The joke is that you can’t tell which one. There are a million symbolic moments of characters gettin’ it on. Truly wild.)

BUT OKAY. It’s not just that there are a bajillion 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; et cetera et cetera. The book is also straight up teeming with stuff like repetition that can either be thematically significant or just a bad job. (Can you imagine being the editor of this book? “Uh, Bram?…Hey buddy. 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 total dumbass?” If I achieve my dream of being an editor/publisher I’m only editing YA. Too scary.)

The upside of all this was that this book was such a blast to discuss in class. (A substantial f*cking improvement from slogging through boring old Huck Finn everyday for two weeks.) We would spend like an hour on a page, trying to discern sexism from feminism and desperately seeking homosexual overtones. (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 shindig was intermittently a blast (ohmygod! Vampires were fun even in 1897!) and soooo boring (ohmygod. What is up with plotlines from 1897). Still, I gotta give mad props to this book, because I read it EXCLUSIVELY by forcing myself through it in 110-page chunks in one work-study shift…and I still enjoyed it most of the time. That never happens! Sure as shit didn’t happen with Huck Finn.

The characters really sucked, but that happens a lot with classics. Weird that a handful of these endured, though. I won’t miss them even if I end up missing reading this. (It’s been a big part of my life for a while! Okay, like a couple weeks, but that’s a long time for me.)

But I do think this book is sexist, and I don’t think it’s close to perfect, and there are creepy issues with 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 impressed 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 started (not actually but don’t @ me) all our cultural whatnot with vampires. (Still not that into them though. I say while technically currently reading some dumb book about them.)

[daria ❀ · Rating 3 out of 5]

i expected it to be gayer tbh

[megs_bookrack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dracula is a truly timeless MASTERPIECE.



Believe it or not, I am still unable to review this, one of my very favorite novels of all time.



I annotated my most recent time reading it, in the hopes that it would help when it came to composing my final thoughts.



Alas, what I am 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, as opposed to providing an analysis of Stoker's work.



We all know in reality a full review will never come.

Regardless, have a gander at this The Lost Boys gif, a movie greatly inspired by Dracula:



Full review or not, I am so happy to have reread this for the 3rd time. Dracula is a book I will continue to reread periodically for the rest of my life.

If you haven't read this yet, please give it a go, it may surprise you. You may think you know this story...

[Lisa of Troy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Friend John, this should have been a short story!

Dracula is a spooky story which begins with Jonathan Harker, an attorney who travels to Transylvania to help his client, Count Dracula, purchase a home in London. However, Dracula is behaving strangely. Will Jonathan make it out alive?

Holy smokes! This book is B-O-R-I-N-G! No wonder there are so many Dracula books and movies because almost anyone else could have done it better!

The book itself has an interesting format—it is told through various characters’ journals, telegrams, and letters.

But---oh, the writing style! Huge, long, gigantic paragraphs! Dracula reminded me of The Scarlett Letter because, although it did have some interesting elements, it was so long and drawn out. If the filler was cut out, it would have made a compelling short story.

“Friend John” was mentioned so many times…….

This is a book that is so poorly written that I am confident that I could write something better. Apparently, I am not alone in this thought as there have been many, many other versions.

2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

[Theo Nixon · Rating 1 out of 5]

when does he open the hotel

[Miranda Reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, everyone and their mother has heard of Dracula. I vant to suk your blud and all that jazz...but I would wager not many have read the original book.

I've always have been curious over the original text but I haven't ever actually took the time to read it. So when I joined in on a Halloween Reading Challenge, I knew what I was going to pick as one of my four reads.

And my overall thoughts on Dracula...was that it was interesting.

I was expecting this big, creepy and scary book but ultimately, I was just interested by the parallels that I saw between this book and the various movie adaptations.

One thing that was certainly different was the pacing - and I really should've expected it given the publication date...but wow. Things took a lonnnng time to ramp up and happen.

All in all, this book was neat to read solely cause I've been curious about the legend for ages but it didn't get to me the way Frankenstein or other monster books did.

YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads

[Sean Barrs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dracula is, of course, one of the most renowned horror stories, and the most well-known vampire novel. Bram Stoker set the ground rules for what a vampire should be, and set the benchmark for all other writers of the vampire afterwards. Indeed, if tyrannical villains are a necessity of Gothic fiction then Count Dracula is the father of all gothic villains, in spite of it being one of the last Gothic fiction novels to be written. It’s a work of genius that his presence is felt so strongly in the novel with him appearing in the flesh so rarely.

"His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth. These protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed. The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.



The atmosphere of the novel is unmistakably gothic. It is impossible to talk about Dracula without mentioning the Gothic; the two are one and the same. The decaying castle in which the book begins is testimony to the eeriness that follows. The "damsel in distress" motif appears quite often in Gothic literature, and none so much as Dracula. Mina and Lucy are both damsels at some point, and even Harker himself can be seen as one at the start when he is rescued by his wife that has a “man’s brain.” It’s quite a subversion of the standard gender roles, at this point, and quite funny really.



On initial inspection the plot of the book can be summed up in a few short sentences: Dracula wishes to create more vampires in Victorian London; his attempts are thwarted and he and his kind are exterminated. But, the novel is so much more than that. It represents Victorian fears and fancies; it is a comment on women’s position in society and underpins their sexual desires (and perhaps fears.) It suggests a struggle between modernity and science with religion and superstition. It harbours the effect of Darwinian thought on man as Dracula himself represent the idea of “survival of the fittest.” The undertones of sexuality and disease that occur so frequently symbolise the time in which it was written. Each one of these has been a topic for commentaries on Dracula, and academic essays.

Indeed, the extrinsic value of this novel is incredibly high. Bram Stoker also explores the theme of sanity with many of his characters, not just Renfield. At some point, every character wonders whether their dealings with the Count are born from some mental deficiency rather than a paranormal encountering with the villain. This clashes the Victorian realism view with the paranormal events that occur in the novel. There are also issues of identity, and how this is affected by transgression. It can further be seen as an allegory for religious redemption and a comment on colonisation.

I think I’ve said enough; if I say anything else I will break my “500 words a review” rule. As you can probably tell I’m quite passionate about this book: it is brilliant; at this point, I can honestly say that Dracula is one of my favourite novels of all time: I just love it. I might even write my dissertation on it and Gothic Literature.

Dracula rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Caz (littlebookowl) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Managed to finish this :) Second time studying, but first successful read-through.
I enjoyed it more this time around, mainly because I actually read the last quarter or so of the book, which was the most enjoyable in my opinion.

[Nina (ninjasbooks) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why did it take me so long to read this masterpiece? It’s a classic for a reason, and now I know why. Brilliantly written, with engaging and intelligent characters.

[Henk · Rating 2 out of 5]

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!

Quite contrary to what I'd expected beforehand is that Dracula is not that creepy.
The book is almost soap like, in how the friends of Lucy are constantly frustrated in their efforts to protect her and how Renfield escapes from the mental asylum all the time. Also the structure of diary entries, telegrams and letters diminishes any tension one might feel, since apparently the people writing lived to tell the tale. For anyone curious, the 1992 film which is on Netflix is quite close to the book when 400 pages of Victorian fiction is a bit too much and you'd like something scary for October.

What I did like and found a bit frightening were the passages of how the boat Demeter loses its crew, being isolated and far away from any help. And sleepwalking is tapping into some unconscious fears as well. Chapter XXV with the mind connection between one of the characters and Dracula reminded me a lot of the link between Harry and Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
But for the rest there is not much to really call this a horror novel.

Only halfway the book the speed picks a bit up, with four blood transfusions (I hope the patient was bloodtype O) and four burials in a few chapters. But after this point the book just falls into endless deliberations on how to beat Dracula, on bringing facts already known to the reader together and some questionable decisions to keep information from the group by Van Helsing.

In general Bram Stoker his writing is quite readable but also overdramatic and not very subtle. The themes and moral are simple: central is how the male forces of science (Dr Seward), aristocracy (Arthur), no-nonsense Americans (Quincy) and spiritistic Dutch lyricism (Van Helsing) are needed to face a threat. They even compare 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) is ignored and shut out after she helped them, and that the valiant men ignore all the signals, in an overly convenient fashion just to move the plot towards it's all too clearly set up climax.

Interesting for a decidedly post-Enlightenment book written around 1900 is the oversized role of religion and class society, one of the men being a Lord getting anything required done with ease, including obtaining client records and breaking in somewhere, while meanwhile everyone is bribed for inquiries all the time.

In the end I found that, in the Appendix of the Penguin Clothbound edition I read, Charlotte Stoker (his mother) writes much more eloquently about the terror of a Cholera epidemic than her son does in the whole book about the supernatural. Those short pages feel strangely like a precursor to the later The Plague of Albert Camus, while Dracula itself feels a lot more similar to the overdramatic, constructed and convoluted Wuthering Heights of Emily Brontë.

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 3 out of 5]

مصاصي الدماء..ما اكثرهم في واقعنا..تأمل قليلا في المقربين منك..و ستكون محظوظا حقا لو لم تجد فامبير جفف مشاعرك و مواردك أولا باول؛قبل ان يجفف الدماء من عروقك مرارا

هي رواية تغذي بداخلك ذلك الشعور الموروث غير مبرر : الخوف بلا منطق ولا نهاية. .
بل ونجد فيه متعة و ندفع المال لنرتجف بين صفحات تلك الرواية الدموية التى تحكي و تحكي و تظل تحكي عن ذلك الوغد الروماني السادي الذي يضع رؤوس اعداؤه على مائدة افطاره! !ا💀

دراكولا تعني "الشيطاني" بالرومانية فقد فاز الكونت فلاد الولاشي باللقب بعد ان سعى اليه كالخراتيت العنيدة ..في الواقع والرواية.

تروى القصة على لسان المحامي البريطاني جونثان هاركر الذي يذهب في رحلة لقلعة الكونت في ترانسلفانيا ..لتحل عليه الللعنة هو و كل من يعرفه او قال له صباح الخير يوما ما
نجد نفسنا تحت رحمة عشر أبطال بتقاليدهم الثرية و عباراتهم العتيقة ..
برام ستوكر "زميل"لنا؛ اي كان ناقدا لعشر سنوات ثم تحول لمؤلف لذا جاءت الرواية مثالية البناء ..الشخصيات متكاملة..الاقناع تدريجي...الرعب في اناقة الكونتيسات

...هناك تطويل بالطبع ليعرف البطل كم كان ساذجا عندما ضحك من كلمة فامبير ..و رؤية فرانسيس كوبولا في فيلم 1992أمسكت بروح الرواية و قدمتها كما لم يحلم ستوكر نفسه... عدا المبالغة في رومانسية دراكولا

لكن ستظل" دراكولا "اول رواية كاملة عن تلك الأسطورة الضاربة في القدم ..رواية ساهمت في تنشيط السياحة في رومانيا لأكثر من قرن كامل .🏰

[Martine · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Welcome to my house. Come freely. Go safely. And leave something of the happiness you bring!'

These are pretty much the first words spoken to Jonathan Harker, one of the heroes of Bram Stoker's Dracula, upon his arrival at Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania, just minutes after a nightmare journey through the landscape of gothic horror: darkness, howling wolves, flames erupting out of the blue, frightened horses. Within a few days of his arrival, Harker will find himself talking of the Count's 'wickedly blazing eyes' and 'new schemes of villainy' and have some hair-raising encounters with the man who is now the world's most famous vampire: '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.' Several adventures involving sharp teeth, mirrors, garlic, crucifixes, bloody-mouthed corpses and big stakes will ensue.

The above quotations should make it abundantly clear what kind of book Dracula is. It's sensation fiction, written nearly half a century after the heyday of that genre. It's a cross between an epistolary novel, a detective novel and a save-my-wife story, and it's full of scares, horror and disgust, all described in a lurid tone that befits the subject: the living dead. Or the Un-Dead, as the book's other hero, my countryman Van Helsing, calls them.

Sadly, Van Helsing is one of my main problems with the book. While I love his heroism, his 'Let's-do-it' attitude and his unceasing struggle for Mina's soul, I find him entirely unconvincing as a Dutchman. I wish to God (with a crucifix and everything!) that I could switch off my inner linguist and appreciate the story for its narrative qualities rather than its linguistic aspects, but Stoker has Van Helsing indulge in so many linguistic improbabilities ('Are you of belief now, friend John?') that it quite took me out of the story, again and again and again. I'm aware this is not a problem that will bother many readers, but I for one dearly wish Stoker had listened to some actual Dutchmen before making the hero of his story one. Then perhaps he also would have refrained from making the poor man mutter German whenever he is supposed to speak his mother tongue. ('Mein Gott' is German, Mr Stoker. I mean, really.)

Linguistic inaccuracies aside (there are many in the book), Dracula has a few more problems. For one thing, the bad guy doesn't make enough appearances. Whenever Stoker focuses on Dracula, the story comes alive -- menace drips off the pages, and the reader finds himself alternately shivering with excitement and recoiling in horror. However, when Dracula is not around (which is most of the second half of the book), the story loses power, to the point where the second half of the book is actually quite dull. In addition, the story seems a little random and unfocused. Remember the 1992 film, in which Dracula obsesses about Mina Harker (Jonathan's wife) because she is his long-lost wife reincarnated? That conceit had grandeur, romance, passion, tragedy. And what was more, it made sense. It explained why Dracula comes all the way from Transylvania to England to find Mina, and why he wants to make her his bride despite the fact that she is being protected by people who clearly want him dead. In the book, however, Mina is merely Jonathan's wife (no reincarnation involved), a random lady Dracula has sunk his teeth into, and while this entitles her to some sympathy, it lacks the grand romantic quality the film had. I guess it's unfair to blame an author for not thinking of an improvement film-makers later made to his story, but I think Stoker rather missed an opportunity there.

And then there's the fact that Stoker seems to be an early proponent of the Robert Jordan School of Writing, meaning he takes an awful lot of time setting the scene, only to end the book on a whimper. The ending to Dracula is so anticlimactic it's rather baffling. Did Stoker run out of paper and ink? Did he want to finish the story before Dracula's brides came and got him? I guess we'll never know.

Still, despite its many flaws Dracula is an exciting read (well, the first half is, anyway), and Stoker undeniably left a legacy that will last for centuries to come. In that respect, Dracula deserves all the praise that has been heaped on it. I still think it could have been better, though. Much better.

[El Librero de Valentina · Rating 5 out of 5]

No hay mucho que decir, es un clásico y es ¡una joya!

[Saranya [mostly ia] · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finally understand the hype. Dracula is a slow burn- the kind of book that makes you want to dnf in the opening chapters if you aren't prepared. It’s a classic, but it’s a heavy classic that requires some literary stamina. It demands a reader already well-acquainted with the patience the genre requires. As a seasoned classic lover myself, even I found it difficult to get into initially. If you are new to older literature, I’d actually advise holding off on this one as diving in too soon might just ruin the experience.

The story is told entirely through a collection of journal entries, letters, ship logs and newspaper clippings. This is where the difficulty actually lied in for me. Jonathan Harker’s initial journals at Castle Dracula are atmospheric and deeply unsettling, but once the setting shifts back to England, the pacing slows down dramatically. We spend a lot of time reading the daily correspondence of Victorian aristocrats, courting rituals and medical logs. However, later do we begin to realize what the author is trying to do. He is slowly building a sense of dread. He lays down a meticulous track of breadcrumbs and when the horror finally bleeds into the ordinary lives of the characters, the payoff is spectacular.

It is a wild experience to engage with the text that undeniably shaped modern vampire lore. Even though Sheridan Le Fanu’s Carmilla introduced the concept, Dracula represents the mainstream debut of this genre. It was the definitive moment vampire fiction which lays the foundations for the what we know of the genre persisting today.

The story begins with Jonathan Harker, an English solicitor traveling to Transylvania for a routine property transaction. Poor man. His only real mistake is not running away after seeing an endless parade of bad omens and foreshadowing done in the story. What begins as boring legal paperwork quickly devolves into the worst business trips in literary history.

Cut to the 1890s. The scene shifts back to England, where a series of bizarre, chilling incidents begin taking place around Whitby. The most heartbreaking thread follows Lucy, whose life is slowly being drained away by a mysterious illness while her best friend, Mina (engaged to Jonathan and then later married), stands by helplessly. Mina is easily one of the most capable figures in the entire book. Brilliant and emotionally resilient, her journals and sheer clarity of mind are what I truly admired. It isn’t until the brilliant Professor Van Helsing investigates that the truth is revealed- this is the sole work of Count Dracula himself. Suddenly, the situation is life and death, leaving Harker, Mina, and Van Helsing as the only ones standing between London and a monster.

Reading this was a kind of strange experience for me. It felt as if I knew it all when I actually didn't. Felt so familiar. I was actually dying for an origin story, but nothing was mentioned. To be honest, perhaps that mystery is exactly what makes him so terrifying- a primordial terror who doesn’t require a neat backstory to be effective.

[Guille · Rating 2 out of 5]

Los libros rara vez me provocan carcajadas y nunca miedo, algún desasosiego quizás, pero miedo nunca, por lo que no me ha extrañado que este tampoco me lo produjera. Por el contrario, sí me han sorprendido las pinceladas de humor que aparecen de vez en cuando (“las mujeres parecían guapas, si no te aproximabas a ellas”) o la descripción que hace del conde y que contrasta tanto con la iconografía cinematográfica. La verdad es que soy incapaz de imaginarme a Drácula con bigote y con manos anchas y dedos regordetes. También me ha llamado la atención, aunque no me ha sorprendido dado el sexo del autor y la época, la ilimitada admiración que las señoritas sienten por el género masculino y, en comparación, la poca estima que demuestran por el propio.

En conjunto, pese a la metedura de pata con temas como las transfusiones, demostrando así el gran desprecio por la ciencia que el autor sentía, o algunos hechos de la trama no bien justificados, o ese final que pareciera como si el autor, por la noche, con ganas ya de irse ya a dormir, la rematara deprisa y corriendo, me ha entretenido, sin más.

Está claro que la novela tiene la gran virtud de haber creado el mito de Drácula, lo que no está al alcance de cualquiera. Y sin embargo, el personaje fue manifiestamente mejorado con posterioridad.

Por cierto, Luis Alberto de Cuenca, nos cuenta en el prólogo de mi edición que la idea de crear al rey de los vampiros le surgió a Stoker tras cenar un indigesto centollo.

[Orsodimondo · Rating 4 out of 5]

NOSFERATU


”Nosferatu” di Murnau non è stato il primo adattamento, ma è stato il primo a lasciare un segno indelebile. Capolavoro del muto e dell’espressionismo tedesco. Murnau dovette modificare il titolo, i nomi dei personaggi (il Conte Dracula diventa il Conte Orlok, interpretato da Max Schreck) e i luoghi (da Londra a Wisborg) per problemi legati ai diritti legali dell'opera. Il regista fu comunque denunciato dagli eredi di Stoker; perse la causa per violazione del diritto d'autore e venne condannato a distruggere tutte le copie della pellicola. Tuttavia una copia "clandestina" fu salvata dallo stesso Murnau, e il film è potuto sopravvivere e arrivare ai giorni nostri. La Prana-Film G.m.b.H., casa di produzione del film, fu costretta a dichiarare bancarotta in seguito alla causa con gli eredi di Stoker, in quanto fu obbligata a pagare il contenzioso sui diritti d'autore. Si è ipotizzato poi che dietro lo pseudonimo di Max Schreck ("massimo orrore" in tedesco) si celasse lo stesso Murnau, pesantemente truccato per interpretare il personaggio.

Uno dei romanzi gotici per eccellenza pubblicato (1897) quando il genere aveva già dato il meglio di sé, almeno in termini di quantità.

Lettura tardiva questa mia. Anche se ho avuto la lunga netta sensazione che si trattasse di rilettura: il riconoscimento, la sensazione “io da qui sono già passato”, mi ha accompagnato dalla prima all’ultima delle quasi cinquecento pagine.
Ma forse s’è trattato di immagini dedotte dai tanti film visti, chissà.


Splendido anche il remake di Werner Herzog del 1979. Indimenticabile Kinski ma ancora di più Isabelle Adjani. Werner Herzog appare nella scena dello sdoganamento delle bare di Nosferatu: è sua la mano del doganiere che ispeziona la terra nelle bare infestate dai topi. Secondo quanto dichiarato dallo stesso Herzog nel commento al film, contenuto nel DVD, nessun altro della troupe aveva il coraggio di toccare i topi.

Il vampiro viene da lontano. E visto che è pressoché immortale, va lontano: sull’argomento consiglio fortemente lo studio di Tommaso Braccini, ricco documentato divertente e appassionante, che dimostra come prima del 1897, nascita di Dracula, i vampiri, prima ancora che pericolosi, fossero mostruosi, schifosi, perfino puzzolenti (fiato incluso), figure relegate al folklore popolare.
Con Dracula – e mai nome fu più azzeccato e più memorabile – nasce il vampiro bel tenebroso, raffinato e aristocratico. Nasce l’evidente collegamento erotico tra vampiro che morde e succhia e bella fanciulla dalla carne tenera e la pelle immacolata: il vampiro entra solo se invitato, varca la soglia solo se desiderato. È la preda, prima ancora del predatore, a reclamare il piacere della caccia, non viceversa.


Bela Lugosi è Dracula nell’omonimo film del 1931 diretto da Tod Browning, forse l’adattamento più celebre. Da critici e appassionati di cinema, l'interpretazione di Bela Lugosi del personaggio è considerata quella l'interpretazione "definitiva" di Dracula. A causa della sua magnetica performance, Dracula divenne il ruolo caratteristico di Bela Lugosi, e rese il "suo" Dracula un'icona culturale, e l'attore stesso una leggenda del ciclo horror della Universal Pictures. Tuttavia, il ruolo di Dracula si sarebbe rivelato per Lugosi sia una benedizione sia una maledizione: nonostante il suo trascorso di interprete teatrale di successo in vari ruoli, dal momento che Lugosi indossò il mantello del vampiro, nonostante i suoi tentativi contrari, rimase per sempre "imprigionato" nel ruolo del conte Dracula. Lugosi venne sepolto, con indosso il mantello di Dracula, all'Holy Cross Cemetery di Culver City, in California. Contrariamente a quanto comunemente si crede, l'attore non lasciò mai alcuna disposizione per essere sepolto con il mantello; il figlio Bela G. Lugosi ha confermato in numerose occasioni che lui e sua madre, Lillian, presero la decisione poiché ritenevano che questa sarebbe stata la volontà del defunto.

Dracula è apparso quando il cinema muoveva i primi passi. E si è subito dimostrato fonte preziosa per lo schermo: già all’epoca del muto, indimenticabile e insuperabile il Nosferatu di Murnau.
L’erotismo del vampiro è evidente nell’esilarante film di Polansky Dance of the Vampires, probabilmente più noto come The Fearless Vampire Killers, da noi diventato Per favore non mordermi sul collo (1967), dove, un anno prima d’essere ammazzata, Sharon Tate dispiegava tutto il suo fascino femminile. E dove il vampiro, nella sua incarnazione più giovane, assumeva anche erotismo omosessuale.
Il collegamento è diventato ancora più palese nella trasposizione cinematografica di Francis Ford Coppola, dove Dracula/Gary Oldman diventa oscuro oggetto di desiderio, somministratore di piacere prima ancora che immortalità.


Altri celebri vampiri dello schermo: Tom Cruise e Brad Pitt in “Intervista col vampiro” di Neil Jordan (1994) tratto da un romanzo di Anne Rice.

Le tre donne avevano tutte denti bianchissimi, che splendevano come perle nel contrasto con il rosso rubino delle loro labbra voluttuose. C’era qualcosa in esse che mi metteva a disagio, qualcosa che era molto attraente e contemporaneamente terribilmente spaventoso. In cuor mio provavo un peccaminoso e bruciante desiderio che esse mi baciassero con quelle labbra rosse
Ma si sa che le rosse labbra voluttuose che incastonano denti bianchissimi sono più interessate al collo che alle labbra. Il collo è la fonte del piacere che cercano.


Altri celebri vampiri dello schermo: il mio amatissimo Bill Nighy nella saga cinematografica “Underworld”.

Poi, certo, il vampiro è la parte nascosta di ciascuno di noi, il nostro Mr Hyde: per quale altro motivo lo specchio non riflette la presenza del vampiro se non perché il vampiro è dentro di noi, non fuori?
Poi, ancora, il conte Dracula viene dalla Transilvania, il confine tra l’est e l’ovest europeo. Ma, forzando la mano, anche la porta verso l’Oriente tout court. E quindi la tenacia e persistenza con la quale Dracula vuole acquartierarsi a Londra testimonia quanto l’Oriente abbia voglia di invadere l’Occidente, bene o male, allora come oggi, ritenuto culla della vera civiltà (a fine Ottocento il Regno Unito era alla sua massima espansione, controllava quasi un quarto del globo).


Altri celebri vampiri dello schermo: Robert Pattinson è il vampiro nella saga cinematografica “Twilight” adattata dalla serie di romanzi di Stephanie Meyer.

Attraverso il diario di viaggio di Jonathan, il carteggio Mina-Lucy, lettere varie, diari, articoli di giornale (di lunghezza improbabile a meno che il quotidiano fosse a tema unico), promemoria, referti medici, telegrammi, registrazioni fonografiche, appunti stenografici, giornali di bordo (cioè di navigazione, scritti alquanto improbabilmente da persona in procinto di essere uccisa): cambiano i narratori, il testimone non viene mai passato a Dracula, ma la storia raccontata è proprio la sua.


Altri celebri vampiri dello schermo: Wesley Snipes nella saga “Blade” tratta dalla serie di fumetti Marvel. Blade è mezzo vampiro, figlio di vampiro e di un’umana: in casa Bonelli lo chiamerebbero Dampyr, il miglior cacciatore di vampiri, il peggior nemico dei vampiri.

Sono numerosi i passaggi che trovo indimenticabili: Dracula che scivola lungo i muri esterni del castello come una veloce “lumaca”; la nave che entra nel porto (di Whitby) governata dal capitano morto che si è legato al timone (quasi novello cristo); Lucy, la prima vittima descritta, è donna, bianca, giovane, e affetta da sonnambulismo, anche lei come il vampiro di notte si trasforma; la lunga lenta trasformazione da umana a vampira, non-morta; l’incontro tra la coppia sposata innamoratissima, lei ormai vampiro; come si elimina un vampiro (paletto piantato nel cuore, classico – con sorpresa, anche testa tagliata e bocca riempita d’aglio)…


Gary Oldman è il Dracula di Coppola qui nella versione agée.

Tra gli aspetti, invece, che ho trovato funzionare meno metterei un’eccessiva lunghezza non indispensabile; una tendenza alla ripetizione o ad allungare i tempi; l’eccessiva enfasi specie se il racconto procede per diario o carteggio.
Ma su tutti, l’assurdo modo di parlare inglese del professor Van Helsing che affatica la lettura e rimane alquanto incomprensibile, sia perché l’uomo è dotto e con grande scibile, sia perché notoriamente gli olandesi parlano l’inglese magari con accento, ma senza errori. Ho pensato molto e spesso a Truman Capote nei panni di Lionel Twain in Murder By Death – Invito a cena con delitto che corregge Peter Sellers nei panni del detective cinese Wang ricordandogli l’uso degli articoli e delle preposizioni articolate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znS3g...
Tutta la “questione olandese” lascia perplesso: sia l’aspetto linguistico che quello geografico (il prof viaggia tra Amsterdam e Londra o altri luoghi inglesi andata e ritorno in 24 ore, alquanto improbabile – come incomprensibile rimangono i motivi che lo spingono a così frequenti ritorni a casa).


Ma se Gary Dracula Oldman beve sangue fresco appare così bel tenebroso. Nonostante Francis Ford abbia intitolato il suo film Dracula’s Bram Stoker, si prende molte libertà rispetto al romanzo: non per niente, sostanzialmente il film di Coppola è una sontuosa magnifica storia d’amore che attraversa oceani di tempo.

Come posso – come potrebbe chiunque – descrivere quella strana scena, la sua solennità, la sua tetraggine, la sua tristezza, il suo orrore e, insieme a tutto questo, la sua dolcezza?


Ma se lo attaccano e lo fanno arrabbiare il bel tenebroso diventa così.


Si è cimentato anche Andy Warhol, anche se il titolo originale non è “Andy Warhol’s Dracula”, ma “Blood for Dracula”, e la regia affidata al fido Paul Morrissey, e in scena c’è il fido Joe Dallesandro. La storia è ambientata in Italia, compare anche Vittorio De Sica, e la distribuzione italiana partorì il geniale titolo di “Dracula cercò sangue di vergine… e morì di sete!!!”.

[Luís · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did not expect this reading style when I began, but I found the story told through diaries or letters exchanged to be enjoyable.
The idea at that time must have been very innovative because even today, I find it significantly developed in its concept and ingenious! The strong presence of solid Catholic beliefs of the time makes the story very realistic.
Although I found some lengthy passages, I thoroughly enjoyed discovering this world-famous book!

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe this may be the edition I read "first". This is an amazing book. I've read reviews by those who disagree and reviews by those who hated the format. But I was swept up in it the first time I read it as a teen and have been every time since.

My advice is don't worry about all the psychological baggage that has been tacked on over the years...and please don't confuse the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with the actual plot, story, and characters in the book. It doesn't remotely resemble the book and the title has galled me since that movie came out. The book is far, far better.
I believe it's worth noting that a lot of the psychological baggage that has been attached to this volume probably tells you more about the ones attaching it than the book.

This book creates a horror atmosphere that has been copied constantly over the years but never quite captured again. You'll be experiencing with Harker the castle and what he faces there. Battling the Count in England...and the terror of the ship's crew that carried his earth boxes across the sea, all will stay with you. Again let me urge you no matter how well any movie has been done, if the movie Dracula is the only one you know, you haven't met the proto-vampire who resides in this book. He/it still walks through literature and even more in the dark fears that lurk in the back of our minds when we're alone on a stormy night or we have to walk alone past that old rundown graveyard (not cemetery) where the city has never gotten around to installing those street lights.

This isn't Twilight, nor is it Buffy the vampire Slayer, there aren't any friendly, helpful, romantic vampires here. (None sparkle either) There is quite probably a reason (or maybe more than one) why we wish so badly to laugh at this book. It does what it does very, very well...and that's be frightening.

This book is a classic that has been around for over a hundred years..there's a reason for that.

"We" just read this in the Supernatural Readers group...and I still like it. LOL

[Savage Bookwolf (new Mario the lone bookwolf) · Rating 4 out of 5]

It´s just freaking rabies

Don´t make such a melodramatic show about it
But seriously, when one takes a vampire and a person infected with rabies and compares them, the similarities are stunning. Hates each liquid, not just holy water, can´t stand sunshine anymore, gets some mental issues, something with 40 days and death, I forgot the exact detail, just google it. Because of this still not done, urgently needed medical science experiments and studies, many people don´t

Appreciate and understand the far more sophisticated vampire
While a person infected with rabies has just become an animal with a death expiration date, the vampire has the willpower and magic to turn the virus into an engine of immortality. By still not understood biochemical and quantum mechanisms, the vampire creates a symbiosis with the rabies virus that exchanges ordinary, or, for best results, virgin human blood for superhuman strength, shapeshifting, intuitively perfect dressing style, and intolerance against werewolves. Sadly no alternative vegan option for blood is available until now. Because of the

The xenophobia of humans against vampires
They are forced to live hidden under us, most probably active in nightlife. Here, they are difficult to find, even in stereotypical outfits, because ridiculous human fashion trends like emo, poser skater/rapper, or hipster make it tricky to find out if someone is real or fake, deep in the flesh of your neck or dumb. Even in the original medieval Sir outfits, they are perfectly hidden and camouflaged in illegal, underground vampire live action role playing games, VLARPs, or any questionable hobby, blood drinking goth nights, stuff humans tend to be into. One could easily have more swallowed than one wished to be sucked out. Including one's soul. Bram Stoker couldn´t imagine

This sociocultural evolution of the first modern vampire descriptions he created
By far not as cool and stylish as modern vampires, the original Dracula has become such a massive mega trope like Frankenstein that his stereotype was transformed into a higher archetype for antagonistic magical creatures. A naive lawyer protagonist gets a bit suspicious about Count Dracula's behavior, but doesn´t really care that much at first because it´s not in his backyard and he seemingly hasn´t that much skin in the game. It escalates quickly then, the mentioned rabies symptoms are combined with a fetishization of religious acts, objects, and words, the biggest dangers for classic vampires. In contrast,

For the modern vampire the biggest fears
Are illegal, or secret military, underground vampire cloning, and experimentation facilities. A crazy scientist doesn´t need any fancy serum to Captain America the voluntary or involuntary human lab rat if the test subject is already naturally pimped and one just has to include some experimental nanotech and biotech (or the mentioned quantum/experimental physics to add some time travel, parallel universes, and uchronia to the blood sucking, Vampnazis, -Hippies, -Neoliberals (even more!) or stuff). Back to the original show, the

Dark comedy slapstick search for hints continues
Until the obvious facts are, self irony style, revealed. Some explicit violence, sexy vampire ladies and aspiring wannabes, and a sightseeing tour accelerate the plasma (overuse of word blood in this review) engine until Van Helsing enters the scene and thereby creates another trope titan, the grim antihero fighter against evil magic creatures. No matter if it´s the original novel inspired by old tales and history, modern Blade or sparkle sparkle little star variants, or what will come in the future. Vampires just freaking rock and suck at the same time hard and enthusiastically.

[Chrissy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I watched the 1992 film adaptation of Dracula as a teenager, (mainly for Keanu Reeves) and believed it to be close to the source material. Wow, is it not! As an avid horror reader, I still hadn't read Dracula until now, and actually thought it would be romantic 😆 Dracula is a proper nefarious villain, he's not lusting after Mina here. (No sparkly vampires, either, but that's a different book...) This novel was great, it's a classic for a reason and was a cracking finale to my 2022 reading year!

[Paul of Bethesda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dracula is still a real and living presence in modern Romania, and there is nothing like reading Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula in Romania during the month of October. During the day, the landscape of the Transylvanian plains seems tranquil, almost pastoral. One sees a shepherd and his dog guiding the sheep to their grazing place, or notices the red tassels that adorn the horses pulling the carts of Romany farmers; and the chief danger seems to be from the aggressive drivers that one sometimes encounters on Romanian roadways.

As night begins to fall, one feels a chill that seems to go deeper than anything that the autumn air alone could cause. One remembers the travel-book warnings that one should not drive 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, austere beauty of the town’s churches. And just what was that little creature winging its unsteady way among the lighted steeples?...

So, I felt impelled to read Dracula in Romania. But then, I had also felt the need to read Dracula on my first visit to Ireland. Yes, I read Joyce and Yeats during my time in Ireland; but when I arrived in Stoker's hometown of Dublin, I found myself wanting to read Dracula first. And, more recently, when I was on a drive up and down the island of Great Britain, and found myself in Whitby in northeastern England, I recalled that one of this great novel's most terrifying episodes takes place at Whitby Harbour, and therefore I found myself turning once again to Dracula. The old bloodsucker won't leave me alone!

Bram Stoker no doubt knew that he had a good story idea in mind. He conducted diligent research regarding the historical Dracula, who died in 1477. The bloody-minded Vlad Țepeș or “Vlad the Impaler,” who as voivode of Wallachia committed unspeakable cruelties on a regular basis, more than earned his nickname as a Drăculești or Dracula, Romanian for “son of the dragon.” So outrageous were the atrocities committed by Vlad Dracula that he became linked with the abundant vampire folklore of Eastern Europe; and 400 years later, Bram Stoker gave Dracula to the world.

The power of Dracula starts with characterization generally, and with the title character in particular. Please allow Stoker to introduce him, as he is first seen by Jonathan Harker, a young English solicitor whose business it is to help facilitate Dracula’s plans to move from Transylvania to England:

Within stood a tall old man, clean-shaven save for a long white moustache, and clad in black from head to foot, without a single speck of color about him anywhere. His face was a strong – a very strong – aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.

It is a chilling detail to note that, once Dracula has relocated from Transylvania to England, he grows younger -- black hair rather than white or grey, with more youthful features. Makes sense, I suppose: in Transylvania, the local peasants know what measures to take to keep the vampire at bay, and only the unwary will be ensnared. But in the rationalist late-19th-century of Queen Victoria's England, where remedies like crucifixes and garlic would be seen as "superstitious" -- well, the table is fairly set for a vampire to slake his thirst endlessly.

From his initial conversations with Harker, Dracula shows his pride in his aristocratic heritage, his disdain for the common people (he would not want even to sleep in the same earth with commoners). It is as if Stoker is suggesting, mischievously, that the move from titled lord to vampire is not a terribly long leap. Jonathan Harker, meanwhile, emerges as a smart and likeable young man; imprisoned in Dracula’s castle, he cannot pit his power against Dracula’s, and therefore he must make good use of his wits if he is to survive his fearful captivity.

Dracula's plans to relocate from Transylvania to England are of course successful; and, as mentioned above, one of the novel's most chilling episodes occurs when the Russian ship Demeter races into Whitby Harbour in the midst of a strangely heavy fog. A correspondent for the Dailygraph newspaper recounts what happened next.

[B]etween the piers, leaping from wave to wave as it rushed at headlong speed, swept the strange schooner before the blast, with all sail set, and gained the safety of the harbour. The searchlight followed her, and a shudder ran through all who saw her, for lashed to the helm was a corpse, with drooping head, which swung horribly to and from at each motion of the ship. No other form could be seen on deck at all. A great awe came on all as they realised that the ship, as if by a miracle, had found the harbour, unsteered by the hand of a dead man! (p. 103)

It is a horrifying archetype -- a ship of the dead -- and the Dailygraph correspondent records how "The man was simply fastened by his hands, tied one over the other, to a spoke of the wheel. Between the inner hand and the wood was a crucifix, the set of beads on which it was fastened being around both wrists and wheel" (pp. 104-05). Situational irony abounds; the reader knows what these details mean, but the characters witnessing these horrors do not.

Once Dracula has successfully arranged to be transported from his Transylvanian homeland to England, the reader sees that a struggle for the future of humanity itself has begun. Fortunately for humankind, Abraham Van Helsing is on the scene. Van Helsing, a great scientist whose areas of expertise extend beyond the natural to the supernatural, draws the reader’s interest and admiration (though Stoker’s attempts at rendering the character’s Dutch-inflected English sometimes seem forced).

Two young women who are dear friends -- Lucy Westenra and Mina Murray -- eventually become the most prominent targets of Dracula's vampiric depredations. Mina is Jonathan's fiancee, and she is desperately worried about Jonathan when his letters from Transylvania stop coming. Lucy, meanwhile, is so popular that she receives proposals of marriage, on the same day, from three highly eligible bachelors -- Arthur Holmwood, an aristocrat who will someday become Lord Godalming; Dr. John Seward, the director of an asylum just outside London; and Quincey Morris, a wealthy young American from Texas.

Lucy is Dracula's first target, and she becomes paler and weaker day by day; and it is heartbreaking to watch the long struggle for her life and soul, between Van Helsing and Lucy’s three suitors on the one hand (all of whom, at one point or another, donate their blood in an effort to stop Lucy’s long, slow decline toward death) and the implacable Dracula on the other. His vampiric effect upon Lucy becomes ever more evident throughout her decline; Dr. John Seward records at one point that "Whilst asleep [Lucy] looked stronger, although more haggard, and her breathing was softer; her open mouth showed the pale gums drawn back from the teeth, which thus looked positively longer and sharper than usual" (p. 202). The novel is filled with just this kind of forehadowing.

Van Helsing asks his new friends if they are prepared to fight the vampire, knowing the danger they all face. Mina, who is now married to Jonathan, records in her journal the commitment they all made together to do battle against the evil of Dracula:

When the Professor had done speaking, my husband looked in my eyes, and I in his; there was no need for speaking between us.

"I answer for Mina and myself," he said.

"Count me in, Professor," said Mr. Quincey Morris, laconically as usual.

"I am with you," said Lord Godalming, "for Lucy's sake, if for no other reason."

Dr. Seward simply nodded. The Professor stood up and, after laying his golden crucifix on the table, held out his hand on either side. I took his right hand, and Lord Godalming his left; Jonathan held my right hand with his left, and stretched across to Mr. Morris. So as we all joined hands, our solemn compact was made. I felt my heart turn icy cold, but it did not even occur to me to draw back. (p. 309)

A couple of unfortunate twists of fate make the outcome of Lucy’s struggle all the more tragic. And then one senses all the more strongly what is at stake as the vampire turns his diabolical attentions toward Mina. Throughout this part of the novel, it is exceedingly painful to witness the suffering of both Mina and Jonathan -- one growing ever weaker, ever more attuned to the mentality of the vampire who wants to make her one of his brides; the other aging before his time, as his fear for Mina makes his hair turn grey and then white (a reversal of the way we see Dracula growing unnaturally younger with all that blood he's been drinking).

Van Helsing is knowledgeable and courageous; Arthur, John, Jonathan, and Quincey do not know the realm of the supernatural as Van Helsing does, but they are all just as brave as he is. The five of them confront Dracula at a house that Dracula has rented in London; the confrontation does not go as Dracula would have liked, and the vampire makes a hasty disappearance. Van Helsing knows what that means:

He, our enemy, have gone away; he have gone back to his Castle in Transylvania. I know it so well, as if a great hand of fire wrote it on the wall....For this he took the money; for this he hurry at the last, lest we catch him before the sun go down....He is clever -- oh, so clever! He know that his game here was finish; and so he decide he go back home. He find ship going by the route he came, and he go in it. We go off now to find what ship.... (p. 406)

And with that, the novel Dracula returns to where it began, as Van Helsing, John, Arthur, Jonathan, and Mina travel overland to Transylvania, hoping to anticipate Dracula's sea-borne return and end the vampire's reign of terror once and for all. I liked that circular aspect of the novel's structure.

I also like how Stoker unfolds the grim story of Dracula through journals, newspaper clippings, letters, diaries, phonograph recordings, and the like. This epistolary, documentary quality contributes to the novel’s power, and somehow makes the novel’s bizarre events seem more plausible.

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

[Julia Ash · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic literary masterpiece!!!

Here's an example of Stoker's writing, from Jonathan Harker's journal shortly after he was taken prisoner by Count Dracula in his castle:

"I looked out over the beautiful expanse, bathed in soft yellow moonlight till it was almost as light as day. In the soft light the distant hills became melted, and the shadows in the valleys and gorges of velvety blackness."

and then...

"But my feelings turned to repulsion and terror when I saw the whole man slowly emerge from the window and begin to crawl down the castle wall over that dreadful abyss, face down, with his cloak spreading out around him like great wings."

add to this...

"I saw fingers and toes grasp the corners of the stones, worn clear of the mortar by the stress of years, and by thus using every projection and inequality move downwards with considerable speed, just as a lizard moves along a wall."

Wow! What writing. I gave this five stars, I mean, who wouldn't? It is also in my favorites bookshelf. A must read for classic horror.

[Luffy Sempai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dracula, the book, struck a chord with me. In it was a fight between good and evil. Modern vampires have great seduction powers. I never liked that. I also didn't like vampires in many Urban Fantasy books. The Hollows series spring to mind. The greatest change in the villainous vampires arises in Anne Rice's books. It was a perfect case study of an idea done to the death.

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

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

It is the testament to Bram Stoker's neatness that I could follow most of the story. And I'm 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, gallant to the end, dying with a smile on his lips.

The entire book defies what happens in movies and series (of which latter I've watched only True Blood). Most people don't read books regularly. So their idea of the vampire comes from horror movies. And 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.

[Murray ᛘᚢᛦᛦᛅᛁ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve read this brooding darkness-in-the-corners Victorian Era classic several times and it never fails to chill the blood - whatever blood I may have left in my body. The women/brides of Drac, who hover over their intended victim in the mansion, always enthrall, entice and tantalize and I’m surprised Bram felt free enough to pen such intense sensuality given the censorious times he lived in.

Another thing: I’m more circumspect about who I recommend the book to now. I encouraged an RN in our medical unit to read the novel and I guess she thought it would be like Twilight or something. Anyways it freaked her out and haunted her and gave her nightmares. This book has a way of sneaking into your imagination and biting you there. A tour de force, but dark as the witching hour of three in the morning.

I know others find it slow. Well, it’s Victorian Gothic. If you’re not into the creep of 19th century Gothic then I don’t know if it will work for you.