Dracula by Bram Stoker

[AE35Unit]

Open the pod-bay doors...: Dracula by Bram Stoker


Hmm my last review for 2017 and its an alleged classic. I've had this book on my shelf a while now and finally got round to reading it. The thing is that Dracula has become this HUGE legend, and one would expect the book from whence the legend sprang would be an amazing read. It wasn't. It had its moments and I could see how it would be seen as ground breaking at the time but, well, its all rather...dull! Not a lot happens, and Dracula himself hardly features in the whole book (which is written in the form of letters and diary entries) and is easily dealt with. Hardly terrifying. Oh well, on bookmooch it goes...off to read Dickens' A Christmas Carol, an annual favourite...
Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Brian G Turner]

I have that edition.

I was disappointed, too. The first third of the story, with Harker trapped in Dracula's castle, I found engaging. But the rest of the book seemed to fall into little more than letter exchanges and notes about blood transfusions, culminating in a rushed two-page finale.

 

[Alexa]

It was the movie based on the book that made it famous. I didn't like the book either.

 

[Overread]

The middle does ponder along; plus most of the story and powers are things that we are quite familiar with so there's little surprise as to what Dracula can pull. That I think takes some of the original power of the mystery from the story.

The other thing is Van Helsing who annoys me greatly. From the prose that is annoying to read to the fact that he seems to spend a lot of time wasting time or going home. He also seems to delight in withholding critical information which then results in even worse things happening to characters.

I'm around 3/4 through but its a bit of a slog to get through, and its not just the older language (as said only Van Helsings bits are painful to read). It is indeed a surprise and I too found the opening chapters the most active and engaging. Once we are dealing with the women there's a lot of back and forth and the story staggers along a bit.

That said for all its faults I think its worth a read, tricky to read, maybe not the greatest but I'd say worth reading!

 

[AE35Unit]

I have that edition.

I was disappointed, too. The first third of the story, with Harker trapped in Dracula's castle, I found engaging. But the rest of the book seemed to fall into little more than letter exchanges and notes about blood transfusions, culminating in a rushed two-page finale.

My thoughts exactly. One good thing about the book, its depictions of Whitby. Having visited it last year it was fun to see the place depicted, the cemetery after all those steps.

 

[The Judge]

I read it in 2012, and was also surprised at how different it was from how I imagined it would be, in view of what it became in the films. My thoughts at the time (three entries as it took me three weeks to finish, though I was reading other books alongside it):

Good description and sense of atmosphere, but it's impossible to read it without wanting to shout "Don't Go There!" at appropriate points. I wonder whether the original readers would have known/guessed from the start that the Count was evil, or whether they would have been shocked at the discovery.

About one-third of the way through Dracula, I'm enjoying it rather more than I feared I would. Stoker's ability to write in different voices is interesting. Very slow-paced, though. I'm not fond of suspense and keep wanting it to hurry up.

Finished Dracula this morning. The very Victorian obsession with The Pure And Noble Woman, and the evident shock that a woman could – gasp! – think as logically and clearly as any man, was sick-making, and I could have done with a lot less of the overt muscular Christianity, but I did enjoy it and I'm glad I've read it. I can certainly see why it captured the imagination of film-makers with action, suspense, glamour, violent death and not-very-hidden sexuality.

​

 

[Foxbat]

I also found the book quite dull. I did find the audiobook (narrated by Christopher Lee) far more enjoyable. It's amazing how a charismatic voice can change a story for the better.

 

[dask]

In my memory, which tends to fade in and out like a far away radio station, I seem to recall a section of the book dealing with the proper way to dispose of a member of the living dead only then to have Dracula stabbed to death with a plain old knife at story's end. Didn't seem to make sense unless I misread something. Still a pretty good read, though nowhere near as spooky as the cover to your edition.

 

[AE35Unit]

In my memory, which tends to fade in and out like a far away radio station, I seem to recall a section of the book dealing with the proper way to dispose of a member of the living dead only then to have Dracula stabbed to death with a plain old knife at story's end. Didn't seem to make sense unless I misread something. Still a pretty good read, though nowhere near as spooky as the cover to your edition.

Yea I noticed that! Its like the author had to finish it in a hurry and he forgot about the stake through the heart, and removal of head procedure for dealing with vampires. Weak, very weak!

 

[J Riff]

I read it in the sixties, it had a lurid cover, and I kept skipping ahead, cheating, and the only scary bit was when Drac was crawling up or down a wall like a giant lizard, I think.

 

[farntfar]

I read it as a teenager, so long ago now I don't remember the details sufficiently to make much of more of a criticism. However I enjoyed it enough to read The Jewel of the Seven Stars right afterwards, which pretty much set the plot for most of the Mummy films.
I also read The Lair of the White Worm, which was pretty awful, and only deserves to have inspired the film of the same name. I enjoyed that too, but different reasons. Both the film and the book were spoofs of their own genres.

There was a TV production of Dracula in the 70s with Louis Jordan, of all people, playing the man(?) himself, and which kept fairly closely to the book.
(It also half the cast of Bouquet of Barbed Wire which rather spoiled any hope of authenticity )

 

[AE35Unit]

The descriptions of dealing with vampires is quite graphic, removal of the head, stuffing the mouth with garlic, then driving a stake through the heart. The blood flows black and the mouth foams red and white. I think he forgot about all that at the end.
Its on bookmooch now...

 

[dask]

Thanks for looking that up. I was fairly sure it was in there somewhere. Hard to believe Stoker goofed like that.

 

[Overread]

In his defence that is only Helsing's answer based upon research. My memory is a bit hazy, but my impression is that he's not actually dealt with a living vampire before; only by reference knows of them. So its perfectly possible that the method for dealing with them that he researched isn't the only valid approach to dealing the final deathblow to a vampire

 

[AE35Unit]

In his defence that is only Helsing's answer based upon research. My memory is a bit hazy, but my impression is that he's not actually dealt with a living vampire before; only by reference knows of them. So its perfectly possible that the method for dealing with them that he researched isn't the only valid approach to dealing the final deathblow to a vampire

The thing is Van Helsing makes it quite clear that the method he uses to dispatch vampires is the correct method. He comes across as knowing what he's doing! I think something happened in the author's life during the writing of the book near end.

 

[anno]

Syphilis?