Dracula

Rating:
Summary: fast-paced adventure....
Review: ....but rather pulpish. It says something about a book when some of the movie versions are actually better. Good light adventure, but no real depth, with the Count being just a cardboard bad guy.

He's plenty evil all right, but the more psychologically minded reader less inclined to moralizing (and flag-waving) will wonder, "What's behind this?" and not find satisfaction.

If you want a tragedy with real depth to it, read Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN.

Rating:
Summary: Frank Langella's Movie Reveals the Flaws
Review: To be sure, this book carries worthy elements. The technique of using letters and journals is interesting, and it helps us to see the situation from different points of view. The pace is nice and swift, and the book rarely drags. Some images are drawn well, and some characters are memorable. It must also be stated that this book provided the foundation for the several Dracula movies. (Notably the Lugosi and Langella version.) Unfortunately, the 1979 version of Dracula with Frank Langella as Dracula and Laurence Olivier as Abraham Van Helsing shows the flaws in the book. (1) It's hard to see the Dracula in this book as anything but a monster who gets what he deserves in the end. Frank Langella makes Dracula all the more frightening by making him human and fascinating. We may not feel sorry for him, but he is more fascinating than repulsive. (2) It takes little to know that in the book, Renfield is under Dracula's power. John Badham (the director of Frank Langella's "Dracula") probably realized that it would be better to give Renfield the initial appearance with Dracula to introduce us to Dracula's evil. This allows for a less obtuse John Harker. (3) Delaying John Harker's meeting Dracula offers us more surprises, a greater unfolding of terror, and allows for a more intelligent John Harker who gradually realizes the danger of Dracula. (4) Laurence Olivier keeps the eccentricities of Abraham Van Helsing, but tones them down nicely. Also, Laurence Olivier (Abraham Van Helsing) is much more convincing here since he has an axe to grind. (Dealing with the death of his beloved daughter, seeing her turned into a vampire, having to run a stake through his own daughter's heart, and having to listen to her cry: 'papa' before she is destroyed.) (5) Making Lucy (Nelligan) an eventual willing victim of Dracula who attacks her father, her possibly to be husband, and father of her recently deceased best girl friend introduces new meaning to the word terror. For the record, this is much more captivating than Mina's sudden absurd pity for Dracula. I don't see how we can go along with any sympathy for Dracula in the book. Unlike Macbeth from "Macbeth" or Claudius from "Hamlet" we were never permitted to see him as human. (6) The book has Renfield's murder off stage. (We shouldn't really have trouble knowing Dracula did it at this point.) So much is lost here. In Langella's movie, much of Langella's crimes have been offstage. There is unspeakable terror in the fact that we finally see a brutal murder on stage. Don't get me wrong. This is a good book that deserves a place in the museum of literature, and it did pave the way for Lugosi and Langella.But in all honesty, John Badham, Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier, Trevor Eve, Donald Pleasence, and Kate Nelligan outdid the book in evry sense of the word.

Rating:
Summary: What I thought!
Review: i thought the book was pretty sweet all in all. i would and will read it agian this was the second time i've read it. i like the part when Mr. Hawkins cutts himself shaving and dracula allmost bites him it was cool.

Rating:
Summary: Very clever
Review: I agree with all the other 5 star reviews and would add that this book should be read in its historical context. Dracula was published in 1897 and does a fantastic job of playing off the changing societal norms in the Victorian era. For example, the old scientist who does not want to rule out supernatural explanations for Count Dracula versus the young scientist who believes only what logic tells him he can believe.

The tension between logic and the supernatural is a great theme that runs throughout Victorian literature such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's, The Hound of the Baskervilles (1902) and Robert Louis Stevenson's, Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde (1886). But Stoker takes changing societal norms one step further and plays with the changing role of women perfectly, for it is only the less virtuous ones who fall victim to the Count. This theme is also present in Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde but is not as pronounced.

In short, this is a great piece of literature that should not be missed.

Rating:
Summary: Very excellent book with only a few minor flaws.
Review: *Note-contains spoilers*

"Dracula," the only book for which Bram Stoker is really famous, is very good. The use of multiple points of view enhanced the suspense, and the protagonists (my favorite was Dr. Seward) were all written well, as well as Dracula himself. And the first few chapters, beginning with Jonathan Harker's train arriving late, up to Harker attempting his escape from Castle Dracula, are some of the scariest passages in all of literature (especially the night-ride over the Borgo Pass, with the blue flame and the wolves). The climax is also very excellent, from the heroes' race to destroy all the earth-boxes to the final confronation with the Count himself.

However, the novel bogs down a bit in the middle, during the "Lucy Westenra" section. In fact, all of the flaws of the novel occur during this section. Lucy herself is so bland and boring you find yourself wishing Dracula would go ahead and just kill her now. And everyone else blathering on about how perfect and pure she is gets quite irritating. Thankfully, once she is truly dead, the novel picks right back up.

Overall--highly recommended!

Rating:
Summary: Ridiculous characters doing silly things
Review: I wanted to like this, I really did. It's a classic, right? It's the pioneering vampire novel that started it all, isn't it? Maybe'but that's apparently not a guarantee of an entertaining story.

I've never read this before nor have I seen any movie version. I knew all the vampire rules (sleeps during the day, neck-biting, wooden stake through the heart, etc.) but wanted to read the original story. I've had the book for quite a while (save the cash, stick to the free eBook!) and wanted to read it in preparation for a book club's pick of Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape. I even started reading them in parallel for about 25 pages but because Saberhagen included some Stoker spoilers, I decided to finish Stoker's Dracula first.

I enjoyed the writing in the first few chapters. It was like other late 19th century fiction I've read and enjoyed (H.G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle). But it degraded sharply from there. How does any author get away with writing: 'Tell your friend that when that time you suck from my wound so swiftly the poison of the gangrene from that knife that our other friend, too nervous, let slip, you did more for him when he wants my aids and you call for them than all his great fortune could do?' If I ever submitted that on a college paper, I would have gotten a big, fat F after the professor was done laughing and showing his colleagues. That little ditty, trespassing on page 120, was were I finally said, 'I'm done.'

Unhappily, the characters were simply unbelievable. Let me ask you'if some red-eyed, wall-crawling, sharp-toothed stranger who you only saw at nighttime locked you up in his castle for 6 weeks, would you at least mention it to him? I mean, wouldn't you say something like, 'Hey, why are you doing this?' Me too. But the completely resourceless character of Jonathan Harker sits idly by after realizing his host has him trapped. Well, not completely idle'he has his diary.

And that's another thing. The format of the novel is excerpts from diaries, letters, and news clippings. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I couldn't help wonder how anyone could remember enough minute details about extensive conservations to document them later that night or the next day.

My reading time is better spent elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: A flawed masterwork...
Review: ...and I say that because this book (not a "retelling" of the Dracula myth, as one reviewer assumed, but the original Dracula myth in its pure form) does have its weaknesses. Some of the dialogue is overblown at times (and Van Helsing's fractured English makes him seem more goofy than wise and powerful). The characters sometimes are flat (Quincey Morris acting too laidback when he fearfully shoots at a bat--who happens to be you-know-who--perched on a balcony). And the physical description of Dracula--conceived as a stage role for Stoker's boss, actor Henry Irving--is more likely to induce laughter than fear. Stoker's depiction of Dracula is a skinny Henry Irving with Spock ears, fangs that protrude over his lips, long nails, and hairy palms. Not exactly scary. The Hollywood conception of Dracula as a normal-looking fellow who only sprouts fangs when about to attack is much scarier, and more fitting for such a menacing character. And Boris Vallejo's beautiful cover art for the TOR reissue pretty much cements the point. He, too, presents Dracula as a human-looking villain, but with an air of menace around him. As such, the character is actually more fearsome as a romantic icon than he is in Stoker's "Henry Irving as fanged Spock" description.

That said, DRACULA's position as a classic is well-deserved. Its plotting is swift and furious, and the use of multiple viewpoints allows the story to be multifaceted. An air of melancholy gloom saturates the narrative, and it certainly stays with you even after you finish it. There are some truly chilling moments, and Dracula...well, even though he's not given much page time, he pretty much steals the show. He is indeed a paragon of pure evil, and as such is the most engaging character in the book. One can almost hear Bela Lugosi's voice snarling the dialogue. (It was fun to see him boast of how clever Vlad the Impaler--Dracula's true identity, as it happens--was when he defeated the Turks. That Dracula would actually brag about his glory days in the third person was a hoot.) Especially interesting is the comment at the end when Jonathan Harker, looking over all the journal entires that comprise the book's story, says that there's "not one authentic document, just as mass of typewriting," which makes one wonder if Dracula was indeed a vampire who nearly destroyed these people's lives, or is the whole story a smokescreen for something else? That idea actually makes the book even more terrifying.

In short, read and enjoy. It's a worthy book, and it is fun to see how the legend began.

Rating:
Summary: Super-duper, Spooky Ride!!
Review: Bram Stoker's "DRACULA" is definitely THE GOTHIC NOVEL. I read Stoker's novel for a course on Gothic Literature and still think it is one of the best books I have ever read. So the rambling by Renfield was a little over-wrought and confusing and sort of slowed the story down a bit, so Mina's pontifications and "let's all love one another" ... could get a bit out of hand and annoying (though it is set in Victorian times, what do we expect??), BUT Stoker's book has alot of wonderful characters, suspense and tension to keep the reader going. I was reading it late at night in my room and when the curtains were blowing in my room, it made a sound which made me fear a vampiric bat was lying in wait of me outside, waiting for me to invite him in....shudder....A super book on alternative family/ blood ties, about good vs. evil, about love and lust, about the mysterious eastern European landscape and Vlad the Impaler, this romantic (in the old sense) book is a must read for all. ....

Rating:
Summary: In the Dark
Review: Bram Stoker's account of the famous and infamous story of Count Dracula is a thriller. If you enjoyed the fear of Hollywood's version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, this will scare you to death. This is definatley not a book to read at night, by yourself, every creek and groan turns into Dracula as he quietly seeks his revenge.

Rating:
Summary: Misunderstood Classic
Review: One of the scariest books in history, DRACULA is nevertheless misunderstood. Our civilization is removed from the Victorian era. We think of it as somehow distant and quaint, and ourselves as modern. But when Bram Stoker published DRACULA in 1897, the Victorian era _was_ modern. Stoker meant to make the book more frightening than most books by bringing an ancient horror into a modern, anti-superstitious world. He uses typewriters and phonograph disks the way a modern writer would refer to the internet and e-mail. DRACULA's first readers might've looked out of their town or country houses and expected to see Dracula's gaunt figure emerging through the fog.

He tells the story through a series of diaries, letters, clippings. Normally this is an unweildy method of storytelling, but in this case it is most effective.

The novel is divided into three broad sections. In the first, young Jonathan Harker and Dracula have the stage almost alone. Though Harker's diary we learn details of his journey through eastern Europe to meet a Count who wants to travel to England, and Harker carries him certain important papers. Count Dracula's character comes across very strong and well-defined, and grows ever menacing as Harker slowly learns he is not going to be allowed back to England, but will become food for Dracula's vampiric harem.

The second part of the book, set in England, deals with Mina Murray, who is going to marry Jonathan; Mina's friend Lucy; three men who are in love with Lucy; and a good-hearted but mysterious Ductch doctor, Abraham van Helsing. The bulk of this part deals with Lucy's mysterious disease, her decline to death, and her transformation into a vampire that her suitors must destroy out of love. Dracula appears only fleetingly through the book, but the reader knows what happens, and suspects the cause of Lucy's decline.

In the last part, Jonathan, Mina, and Lucy's three lovers band with Dr. von Helsing in a pact to destroy Dracula before he can spread his contagion throughout England; and meanwhile, Dracula wreaks his vengeance on them for taking Lucy from him.

Stoker uses many ways of approaching his subject. Occasionally the horror is direct; but once it is established, he makes it subtle, working behind the scenes, in a way that may be even more frightening. Though he also uses different voices, his prose is invariably fine. And as each character has to overcome his aversion to ancient superstition and face Dracula with a mind open to the fact that there's more in the world than science and technology and late-Victorian materialism can contain, the book becomes eerily meaningful for the twenty-first century.

Modern purveyors of vampiric fiction dispense with the blatant Christian symbolism used to fight Dracula's ilk, such as a crucifix or sanctified host, or prayer. They also turn the evil of Dracula topsy-turvey and somehow invent sympathy for soulless monsters who view living humans as food. Stoker doesn't hesitate to show Dracula as an evil, totalitarian horror; as a contagion that must be eradicated; as an enslaver of women, like Lucy, and men, like poor Renfield. And Stoker has reason enough to realized that only Supernatural agencies could fight the supernatural. The saving Blood of Christ on the Cross, blood of which a soulless terror like Dracula cannot drink, is the most effective symbol for fighting and defeating this brand of evil. It was part of the novel's consistency that as the characters have to come to grips with the reality of ancient evil, they must also return to the symbols of good that they also have rejected in a narrow-minded embracing of the modern.

Dracula, the strongest character in Victorian fiction, does not weaken himself by the need to be "understood" or "pitied". He will destroy or be destroyed. And the worst destruction that could happen to him would be mitigation.

DRACULA may be the scariest book ever written; it's certainly the best of the classic horror stories. It's well-crafted and exquisitely constructed enough that it stands as a great novel even without genre pigeonholing.