Dracula

Rating:
Summary: The book that got me hooked........ on reading
Review: ... This is, without a doubt, one of the most facinating and absorbing adventure tales and vampire tales ever written. This is the book that created horror....

One of the many reasons I enjoyed this novel is the way it is written through journals and letters. This book trails the heroic conquests of Jonathan Harker and his brave wofe Minna as they try to save themselves and countless other innocent souls from a man too evil to be human. I know why this is among the most popular books of all time by its fullness of action, suspense, gore and romance. But in order to see all of that, you'll have to read it for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: The Original and Best Vampire Story
Review: Everyone knows the name "Dracula," but the majority have only seen the legendary Transylvanian Count on the silver screen or through pop culture; few indeed have actually read the work that started it all.

One cannot claim to be a fan of vampire literature or of Dracula himself without having read Bram Stoker's tremendous work of gothic horror. Think that Dracula and other vampires can't be out in daylight? Wrong--they simply have no powers during the day, which you'd know if you read this extraordinary book.

Written in epistolary form (that is, as a series of letters and diary entries), the story is presented from the viewpoints of the main characters, from Jonathan Harker to his wife Mina to Dr. van Helsing. Rather than detracting from the story, this format breaks up what would otherwise be a rather long manuscript into manageable chunks and adds to the historical character of the novel.

Modern film interpretations have presented Stoker's story through the eyes of each producer, director, and screenwriter, with nearly all making wholesale changes--Mina Harker, for instance, is NOT the reborn lost love of Count Dracula as Francis Ford Coppola would have us believe. Many others who have "read" Dracula have done so through abridged texts that distort the story through omission. Pick up and read the story that started it all in its intended format... Bram Stoker's Dracula. You won't regret it.

Rating:
Summary: The Original and Classic Vampire Story
Review: Everyone knows the name "Dracula," but the majority have only seen the legendary Transylvanian Count on the silver screen or through pop culture; few indeed have actually read the work that started it all.

One cannot claim to be a fan of vampire literature or of Dracula himself without having read Bram Stoker's tremendous work of gothic horror. Think that Dracula and other vampires can't be out in daylight? Wrong--they simply have no powers during the day, which you'd know if you read this extraordinary book.

Written in epistolary form (that is, as a series of letters and diary entries), the story is presented from the viewpoints of the main characters, from Jonathan Harker to his wife Mina to Dr. van Helsing. Rather than detracting from the story, this format breaks up what would otherwise be a rather long manuscript into manageable chunks and adds to the historical character of the novel.

Modern film interpretations have presented Stoker's story through the eyes of each producer, director, and screenwriter, with nearly all making wholesale changes--Mina Harker, for instance, is NOT the reborn lost love of Count Dracula as Francis Ford Coppola would have us believe. Many others who have "read" Dracula have done so through abridged texts that distort the story through omission. Pick up and read the story that started it all in its intended format... Bram Stoker's Dracula. You won't regret it.

Rating:
Summary: Thrilling and truly frightening
Review: Bram Stoker's Dracula came as a nice surprise. I expected a dull, dreary period piece with a small amount of horror thrown in; instead I was treated to a fine tale of monstrous terror lit by a backdrop of Victorian gaslights.

As you know, Dracula is a vampire. A vampire's lot in life (or unlife) is to exist with a wanton need for human blood, living forever while feeding upon the souls of its victims. Vampires are immortal; or can be as long as they consume human blood, which is their primary form of sustenance. They can turn themselves into a foggy mist. They can change their shape to resemble bats or wolves, among other things. They have the power to hypnotize their prey, and even have the power to turn their victims undead as they are, cursing their victims for eternity. For the vampire is not alive as we know it; they live in a state of undeath. Their bodies appear human, yet the uniquely human qualities of the vampire are long dead.

Vampires routinely scheme for power, or failing that they scheme simply out of boredom. Humans are their unwitting pawns.

Dracula begins with the journals of Jonathan Harker, who has been hired by the Count Dracula to prepare the Count's legal affairs for the purpose of an extended trip to London the Count wishes to take. While in Dracula's castle, Harker is tormented by the Count and various other fiends within the walls of the castle. Harker is prohibited from exploring the castle during his stay, yet his curiosity gets the better of him and Harker finds himself plunged into a supernatural pit of despair. Dracula intends to bind Harker within the castle until the arrangements for the London trip are finalized, and mostly succeeds; Harker finally leaves, but is mentally scarred and in no position to challenge the Count's behavior.

Fast forward a bit, and we meet Dr. Seward, a "modern" psychologist working in an asylum, Mina, Harker's fiancée, playing the womanly role of helpless victim (yet one of the most clever and quick witted characters in the book), pining for his return and worrying about his whereabouts, and Lucy, Mina's friend and confidant who seems to be having trouble sleeping...

Lucy, you see, has been having bouts with sleepwalking and Mina has become concerned. She calls upon Dr. Seward, and he in turn calls his mentor, Dr. Van Helsing, to assist in his examination of Lucy's mental state. Lucy begins to feel physically ill, complaining of extreme weakness and is perpetually tired. Van Helsing is getting suspicious, and calls for blood transfusions to assist poor Lucy and her weakness.

Van Helsing is the best character in the book. He plays the part of the imminently respected doctor who still has respect for the old ways and traditions. His speeches are loaded with bombastic, Victorian charm, and never is he at a loss for words. Melodramatic might be a nice word for him, but I don't think it's strong enough. Imagine a player who can speak for pages at a time, yet for every 500 words of apology, politeness, and trying to "protect" his acquaintances from the unspeakable truth, he might speak 10 words which get to the POINT. I found him charming in the same sense as an actor over-dramaticizing their role to the max; think of William Shatner playing the role in all his over-the-top glory.

The story moves along with a bit of a slow pace, but the language Stoker uses and the tension-building skills he possesses shine through. Other characters, such as Lucy's husband Arthur, are well drawn and each has a clear personality of their own. The personalities shine through in Stoker's use of journals and diaries by the players throughout Dracula.

We learn that Van Helsing has used his years of background studies to conclude that Lucy's ailments are the result of numerous "feedings" by a nightmarish creature in their midst - the vampire! The plot snowballs from there, and the band of confidants develop a plan to rid their nights of the vampire menace. That's enough plot for now; I don't want to be a spoiler!

The supernatural fear that Stoker invokes is quite real. For each incredible ghoulish power Dracula holds, the solutions are equally supernatural in nature. Mostly, the weapons to ward off vampires include Catholic symbols such as the Crucifix and pieces of the Host. For me, the solutions are every bit as frightening as the problem; it seems to me that using faith as a weapon vs. the very real fear of death can be an intimidating prospect. What happens if you are an unbeliever? These characters are believers, but there is no doubt that they too question (not in so many words) placing their lives in the hands of mystical wards against evil. Harrowing stuff, if you read between the lines.

The essence of Victorian life is used as the perfect backdrop to our story. Van Helsing understands too well that the "modern" world no longer wishes to accept such creatures as vampires. Dr. Seward, a man of the times, is forced to admit that Van Helsing is on the right track; even though it was Van Helsing's teachings that brought Seward to the top of his profession. The teacher didn't tell him everything, and with good reason.

Dracula doesn't make too many personal appearances within these pages. He is used as a phantom, and fleeting glimpses out of the corner of your eye are all you see of him. Foe me, this accents the horror of this unnatural "man". Often, Stoker will allude to the terror, and just when you think the writer will refrain from placing the horror before your eyes, he goes for the throat. This was cutting edge material when it was new, and reads very well today. Certainly the readership 100 years ago were shocked out of their skin when reading about the three sisters, or asking themselves what exactly did Dracula do to that poor woman...?

An outstanding novel, and easily convinced me why it's been so popular over the years. A must for any fan of horror fiction.

Rating:
Summary: The first of the frightrides
Review: If "Lord of the Rings" was the first major fantasy work, then "Dracula" was the first major horror work. It technically wasn't the first vampire-related work of fiction, but it was the first to become so incredibly well-known and has shaped all vampire-related horror ever since. It's absolutely fantastic.

A young English man, Jonathan Harker, comes to the castle of the mysterious Count Dracula, after encountering a lot of seemingly superstitious locals, who seem to be afraid of something. (One old lady even gives him a crucifix) And soon Jonathan discovers why -- Dracula, for all his seeming politeness, is a vampire, a merciless blood-drinking undead being. And worst of all, Dracula is about to venture out of Romania in search of fresh blood.

Modern readers often find "Dracula" rather dense, because the Victorians were very prose-y writers. So be ready for a lot of detailed descriptions of travel and speeches, and some now-cliched material like the wolves and vampiric grins. But the imagery that Stoker pulls up every now and then is absolutely chilling, such as when Jonathan notices that Dracula has no reflection, or when Dracula crawls DOWN the castle wall. Very freaky. And the freakiness is not just of the horrific kind, but also like when three vampire girls appear to seductively feed on Jonathan -- the passages where they approach him are sexy and dreamy in a horrible kind of way.

Even in the non-horrifying passages, "Dracula" has a kind of poetic grimness, with phrases like "the dark side of twilight" or the line "the dead travel fast." It has a very understated menace that a lot of supposed horror fiction doesn't manage. The writing, in its lush Victorian manner, is also extremely lyrical, with a lot of very evocative words woven in there. ("Here and there are silver threads where the rivers wind in deep gorges through the forests.")

The diary/letter/clipping format is something that almost never works in a book, because usually it's handled very awkwardly. But Stoker did this quite well, and it makes you wonder if the people who wrote these entries are going to live to see the end. He also does a good job in making them all sound very different; Mina's writing is very different from Jonathan's. (Although I HATE Van Helsing's accent)

The characters, especially the increasingly freaked-out Jonathan and the understatedly strong Mina, are usually quite likeable, if a bit typical (personalitywise) of people of that era. Mina in particular is striking -- without really stepping outside the boundaries of a Victorian lady, she becomes a very strong presence in the fight against Dracula. Dracula himself is just evil -- creepy, freaky, and purely vampiric. He's perfect, especially the feeling of not just a lack of good, but a deliberate step the other way -- he's not misguided, not whiny, ...

Usually the first major book of any genre is the best, and "Dracula" is no exception. If you can handle the heavier prose of Stoker's time, then this is a downright chilling story. A must-read, and a true classic.

Rating:
Summary: Basis for 100 Movies, and so much better than all of them
Review: The first time I picked up Dracula was at the age of twelve while on a Gothic Literature kick and considering the Coppola version of the film had just come out, expected to be sinking my teeth into a horror tale akin to The Vampyr. Only problem was Stoker wrote the book a few decades too late to be considered truly "gothic" and it isn't really a horror novel at all [despite what my teachers and minister kept telling my parents].

Dracula is a love story at its heart. The romantic love story between Jonathon Harker and his sweetheart Whilamina Murray, as he escapes from castle prisons, fends off the advances of Dracula's Brides, and finally hunts down the lethal creature he unwittingly sets on Mina's scent. It is also the story of platonic love between a group that cover almost every aspect of Victorian Society as they come together to become not just the force that will destroy the Count, but the closest of friends. The Victorian Morality is rather thick, but rather than taking from the story as many books written during this same time it only add to the storyline. The way in which it is written as well - as diary entries and scrapbook clippings - also adds to the mood and drives the story on quite effectively. The tensions slowly build with every entry as you jump from Jonathon's journal to Mina's diary to John Seward's dictations and you find yourself wanting to read as fast as you through one character's words to find out what piece of the puzzle the next character will help you discover. To be quite honest, the Count himself is really a secondary character .... an evil for the lovers and their friends to defeat so they may save the Pure Miss Mina from the same fate as the other women in the novel.

Those looking for a sexy horror novel might be disappointed by Dracula because it really doesn't offer much of either unless you're willing to read into the Victorian Politeness of the prose. However those looking for an inventive, well written classic tale of love, honour, friendship and a stirring battle against the powers of evil will not be disappointed with this book one bit.

Rating:
Summary: Good but not great
Review: I know it's blasphemy, but hear me out! Did I enjoy this book? Yes. Do I recommend it? Yes. However readers need to be warned about the Van Helsing diatribes. Even those who are fans of flowery victorian prose will find this trying. It's this alone that hinders the pace of this book and had I been warned ahead of time, I think I would have enjoyed Dracula more than I did. That aside, let's get to the good points.

The journal entries as a form of telling the story are unique and work for the story. Stoker is quite capable of providing each character a distinctive voice making them personable and the reader that much more involved. Especially with Harker and Mina. But it can lag due to the reasons stated above.

Some of the scenes are downright scary! When the pace picks up, the descriptive writing combined with years of media perception surprisingly adds to the enjoyment of reading this. Not to mention Renfield is a force to be reckoned with in the book wheras he is parodied in most movies. I found myself getting goosebumps and that's saying something for a book written about a century ago.

And lastly the major theme of the book is a sheer delight. Science over mysticism. The 1800's must have been an interesting time. It's the century that invented psychology and yet people were still being arrested for witchcraft. This is Stoker's master stroke. He captures the excitment and conflict of these elements perfectly. More so than Frankenstein, which is more of a scientific morality tale. Here they embrace it and save for Coppola's half-hearted attempt, none of the movies have bothered to touch on it.
Dracula is a good book, but I just couldn't get into Van Helsing. Highly recommended though. A classic that captures it's time and doesent wane with it.

Rating:
Summary: Sink your teeth into this book
Review: I put off reading Dracula for awhile after a friend told me, "It's not at all like the (1931) movie, it's just a bunch of boring journal entries."

How wrong they were. And I'm sorry I waited so long to find that out.

The interweaving of the narratives, sometimes skipping back a day or two to have one character's perspective "catch up" to another's was masterfully done. No sooner is one moment of suspense reached than we switch to someone else's current adventure, and the tension starts building all over again.

Some people think that the book wanders away from the action too much, but I didn't find that to be a problem. The characters and atmosphere are so well written that any "background" information blends well into the plot itself.

The only thing I found that slowed me down a bit was Van Helsing's broken English. However, once I got used to his style of speaking, it wasn't much of a hinderance to the pace.

One aspect of the book that I especially appreciated is the fact that Mina Murray Harker is such a strong character. In the (1931) movie, she mostly looks winsome and cries. In this novel, she's a much bigger part of the action, actively participating in the mission to destroy Count Dracula even as she falls under his spell herself.

I'm glad I finally read this book and had the opportunity to experience "Dracula" as its author intended the story to be told.

Rating:
Summary: A very interesting look at the original Dracula
Review: Although I'm not much of a horror fan, I decided to read Dracula since it was considered a classic and was hopefully pretty good. I'm glad I read it. It was a very interesting story. It wasn't what I was expecting. The whole novel is written as if you're reading someone's diary, telegram or news article. It starts with Jonathan Harker(a lawyer if I remember correctly) who is summoned to Count Dracula's castle to help Dracula obtain a home in London. He soon realizes Dracula is no ordinary man, but some kind of beast. This section takes about 1/4 of the book and then, after some deaths surrounded with unusual and frightening circumstances, Jonathan, along with some other interesting characters commit to not only prevent Dracula's move to London, but to kill him. This book was interesting in the fact that it was almost as if Dracula is not the main character of the novel, and I suppose in some ways, he's not. The book focuses much more on this group of people's attempts to hinder Dracula's actions and to cause his demise. Also, I liked reading the book and discovering the original story behind Dracula, not just all of the spoofs and parodies one sees today. I liked finding out that besides not liking garlic, crosses and sunlight, vampires also can't pass running water and can turn into wolves as well as bats. Although I can't say I was ever particularly scared reading this novel(probably because I don't really believe in vampires), I did find this novel to be very good, especially considering horror isn't one of the genres I'm particularly fond of. I definitely think it's worth picking up this book and reading it.

Rating:
Summary: classic, in a (mostly) good way
Review: Bram Stoker's tale of the vampire Count Dracula, and related stories of vampires and other demons, have so saturated our culture that reading the originals of the genre is essential to any dedicated student of either literature or popular mythology. Fortunately, "Dracula" is not the dusty, overwrought tale one might expect from its length and age. Instead, it is intense, exciting, and usually difficult to put down. Stoker had a talent for writing engaging prose that is at once meditative and action-filled.

But "Dracula" is neither flawless nor innocuous. It's a scary read, and sometimes a dense one - as the book progresses, the excitement is increasingly broken up by literally pages of speechmaking and other nineteenth-century affectations. While these may be interesting to a student of literature or history, they're static to the modern thrillseeker, and I found myself confused as to whether the author meant the characters' extreme statements of love, hate, allegience, etc. to be taken seriously.

This is the dilemma of "Dracula". It's a good scare and an interesting read, but the length and breadth of the book convinced me that there must be more to it. The characters seem too obviously stereotyped - the men in their valiant, unselfish approach to villainy and the women in their purity - to be serious, and the plot proceeds along a course so obvious that it seems the author must be mocking himself. But that's the problem with reading a classic after you've seen the rip-offs: the classic seems old and overdone, a cheap parody of itself.

Still, classics have a lot to offer. Beyond the fantasy element, "Dracula" offers a mixture of the traditional epic tale of man against the evil beast without, and the modern introspection of man against the evil beast within. Despite its flaws, it is a worthwhile read.