Rating: 
Summary: the blood is the life
Review: This is the most famous horror story of all. Based on the bloodthirsty Transylvanian ruler Vlad Tepes, otherwise known as the Impaler because of his practice of impaling enemy prisoners-of-war on stakes, "Dracula" is the tale of an evil count who is a vampire. The story has little to do wuth the historical Vlad, but that makes it no less spine-chilling.This unusual novel is told entirely through diaries and letters of the main characters. Count Dracula buys a property in England through Jonathan Harker. The count seems to have a taste for English ladies' blood, and when he goes after Harker's fiancee Mina, she narrowly escapes, though her friend Lucy was not so lucky. Hunted and on the run, Dracula himself escapes back to Transylvania, hotly pursued by Harker, Professor Van Helsing, and others. This chase and its climax culminates in a thrilling show-down! David Rehak
author of "Love and Madness"
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: A classic reading experience
Review: All my life I have heared and seen movies about Dracula, Frankenstein and Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde. Normally I do not read/science fiction, but I was curious about these three and decided to find out how these literary characters attained their long lasting lives. The time spent reading the three books was worth it. It was an entertaining cultural experience.
I'll leave it to the experts to try to tell you why they are classics. But if you are always short on time, like I am, my order of preference is as I listed them in my first sentance.
Rating: 
Summary: I' seen better
Review: Dracula was a huge dissapointment, I expected a book that would make me have trouble sleeping at night. Instead I got a bland ending and a predictable plot. It had too much fluff and not enough adventure. There was only one part in the story in which I was slightly scared. I would deffinately not recomend this book to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Ol' Drac Ain't Like He Used To Be
Review: It is interesting to read the original literary versions of tales that have had a long reign in popular culture and have spawned many updates and adaptations. You can see that the tale of the original Count Dracula has evolved greatly in movies and books since the bad guy first appeared in Bram Stoker's book more than a century ago. (For an even better example of this process, read Mary Shelley's original Frankenstein novel sometime - the monster will amaze you.) Of course some aspects of the Dracula story have been corrupted over time. For example, most of the story does not take place in Transylvania, Renfield is not Dracula's butler, and Van Helsing is an aging intellectual rather than a swashbuckling monster-slayer. And most of all, the course of this original story pretty much eliminates the need for any of the multitudes of sequels that Stoker's original creation has inspired. Regardless, it is always a treat to go back to the source, as Stoker expertly made use of vampire folklore as it stood at the time, while drawing inspiration for the Dracula character from the real-life genocidal maniac Vlad the Impaler.
Be prepared to read a book that is a product of the writing style of the late 19th century. Stoker's language is dense and a bit slow moving, with words like "stertorious" and "zoophagy." The dialogue is very laborious, with characters speechifying in dramatic and gigantic verse that could hardly come from people in the midst of tense situations. Stoker used the unusual method of presenting the narrative mostly in the form of diary entries by the major characters, which stretches the limits of credulity. These people apparently finished up each day of valiantly warring against vampires with two hours of writing with excruciating detail in their diaries, then started each day reading each other's diaries before embarking on another perilous mission. But if you can stomach the rather stiff Victorian writing methods and the enormous monologues, you'll see why this book is an immortal classic for the ages. [~doomsdayer520~]
Rating:
Summary: Dracula: A Classic for a Reason!
Review: Everybody knows the usual tales of vampires and the supernatural. Or, at least, they thought they did. Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is a collection of many accounts of the presence of vampires, and specifically, the infamous Count Dracula. The story starts out with Jonathan Harker, a solicitor journeying to sell Dracula a bit of property. An innocent representative of all that is good in the world, Jonathan soon finds out that he is in great danger. He says, "The castle is a veritable prison, and I am a veritable prisoner! (37). The Count Dracula, who seemed so polite, is truly quite frightening and is planning out Harker's death as he stays in the castle. Jonathan realizes he must escape or die trying.
The story switches from Harker's diary to the journal of Dr. Steward, who works at an asylum near Carfax, the estate that Dracula bought. He tells of his patient Renfield, who is almost certainly insane. Steward also becomes involved with the illness of his former love, Lucy, who is a good friend of Mina Murray (Harker's fiancée). Steward calls upon Van Helsing, his former teacher to assist in the healing of Lucy. After leaving Lucy unattended for a night, she is found to have a turn for the worse, and was thought by Van Helsing to have lost immense quantities of blood via two red marks on the throat. With Lucy's health quickly waning, Mina's fears about her husband's queer manner increasing, and the constant escape of Renfield to Carfax, there is no doubt that all these paradoxes can be related to the one and only Count Dracula.
The strength in personality of every one of the characters is what makes this book a vital read. From Dracula to Mina, each character has a unique personality that shows itself thought their writings and actions. Dracula, who is described by Harker as being unusually and reassuringly polite, is doing so to hide his evil. Mina is an independent woman who is intelligent and can think for herself. Another strong character is Van Helsing. He is a very stern and mysterious man, though he will at times show his emotions. Dr. Seward notes, "Then when his face grew grave and stern, again I asked him why his mirth, and why at such a time. His reply was in a way characteristic of him, for it was logical and forceful and mysterious" (209).
Another strong point of the novel was that one was never without suspense, even throughout the whole 450 pages. The book proves an excellent example of the literary device of a "cliffhanger," for at the end of some of the accounts, the reader is forced to read on to discover the end. When Lucy says, "Goodbye, dear Arthur, if I should not survive this night!" (175) and Van Helsing says, "We can do nothing as yet. Wait and see" (195), the peak of my interests was reached. If that does not so obviously and commandingly tell you to read on, then I don't know what will!
Though this is a quality read, man is not perfect, and neither is this book. The only thing I thought could be improved was that some of the newspaper clippings included in the beginning of the book could have been omitted. In a letter from Quincey Morris to Arthur Holmwood, Quincey says, "Won't you let this be at my camp-fire tonight?" (78). They are simply planning a get together, and it seems as if it has no relation to the other suspenseful action that is going on.
In addition, the book started out a bit slow. When Harker started his journal, I was worried that the book was going to be a hard and boring read. With simple and somewhat trivial information, Jonathan began, "Left Munich at 8:35 p.m. on 1st May, arriving at Vienna early next morning; should have arrived at 6:45, but train was an hour late." (7). These first words of such as classical book were a bit disappointing by my standards. Though I am sure novels are so often hard to get going, such a writer as Bram Stoker should have been able to come up with a better first impression.
With such a book as this, I am completely willing to give up all critic remarks. Dracula is not a classic without reason, but a beautifully literary depiction of personality, fear, love, thrill, and intelligence. This novel is a must-read for anyone and everyone who appreciates literature and entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: Believe it or not...
Review: PHONOGRAPH DIARY
SPOKEN BY VAN HELSING
November 8 - Ooh...for long time during my old age he remain yonder, as Friend Quincey would say, but now he swell up at thought of Madam Lucy and Madam Mina together. He...Mein Gott! I did not realize I was recording!
This is the story of couragious men, woman with man-brain, and undead with child-brain. From Transylvania to London and back on ship, our heroes traverse much to rid the world of unabiding evil, a most fractious beast. However, I stop now, though my impulse tells me to disclose more, I tell him no.
Rating:
Summary: FUN
Review: Dracula is fun to read. It is intense for young children, but if a child is made to know it is just a "story" and not real, he should enjoy it with no harm done.
It is not and does not pretend to be great literature. But it is easy to read.
Rating:
Summary: Form to Content: The author's use of journal entries
Review: Bram Stoker creates a personal feel between the novel and the reader by the use of journal entries. Everything read by the reader is from one of the characters personal point of view. This is interesting because of the fact that Lucy writes in her journal and is being visited by Dracula. It helps the reader because they are able to see two sides to the story: those being visited by Dracula and those witnessing the effects. The reader is also able to discover the feeling that the character undergoes while being visited by Dracula which draws the reader into the story further, since they can almost be there at that particular moment and realize what is going on and how it feels. This particular form point, however, has its draw backs. The novel jumps from one persons point of view and experiences to another in an instant which makes the read not so simple, but more focused. It seems as if the novel is switching everything in one sentence which can make the read tedious. On the other hand, the structure does make the novel more interesting in the essence that the reader is able to explore which character they sympathize with most and which character they would like to be while reading the novel. The reader can choose to focus on the investigator, the lover, the businessman who stayed in Dracula's castle, or the oblivious women who is visited by Dracula at night. The author did a wonderful job at piecing the entries together the way he did and by capturing the reader with his interesting choice of structure in his novel. Overall, the novel is better in its entirety due to this use of structure.
Rating:
Summary: So you think you know this book?
Review: Ah, "Dracula". Is there a single book in the English language the more people know better? Well, actually, yes, because the truth of the matter is people who think they KNOW everything there is to know about the story probably have never read the book cover to cover. I realized this about half way in. So much our culture "knows" about vampires and Dracula having nothing to with the text of the book, but originate from Hollywood.
There's not a whole lot of reason to go into the plot too heavily. The basics have been done more or less in the movies: English real estate agent goes to Transylvania to sell a house in England to a mysterious count, Dracula. Dracula is a vampire, intent on finding new blood abroad. What follows is a mostly terrifying (but occasionally slow and dull) battle between good and evil, modernity and superstition, and faith vs. magic.
However, "Dracula" is nowhere near a perfect novel. Bram Stoker, much like his contemporaries, tended to overwrite. In some instances, this approach works, particularly in Jonathan Harker's experiences in Castle Dracula. Here, Stoker is able to convey to the reader (even those familiar with the story from the films) Harker's genuine confusion and horror as Dracula's behavior quickly shifts between cordial and terrifyingly violent. The encounter over the mirror which doesn't reflect Dracula's reflection, Harker's near attack by the count's bride (and the surprising erotic overtones), the feeding on infants, and Harker's discovery of Dracula in his coffin, blood on his lips, as he lays "like some filthy leech" are vividly drawn and thoroughly frightening.
Other excellent moments include the log of the ship Dracula arrives on (pasted, inexplicably into Mina Harker's journal). The desperation of the captain as his crew is picked off by some monster is truly haunting.
Also memorable is the character of Renfield, the lunatic who somehow Dracula reaches out to. His need to eat his way up the food chain is darkly humourous and grotesque.
Sadly, not everything about the novel is this well done. Abraham Van Helsing is a Dutch character. Stoker wildly overwrote his speech patterns and accent. Consequently, he often seems to be more comedy relief than the wise leader of the band of hunters (definitely an improvement in the films). Likewise, Quincey Morris, a Texan, often flirts with stereotype, but Stoker is able to keep the character serious, if not terribly well developed (which is probably why Quincey has only appeared in one or two films, despite his pivotal role in Dracula's demise). The various group meetings to discuss a plan of action and exchange knowledge often take on the quality of a superficial prayer meeting.
What amazed me was how much we take for granted about the Dracula-myth was NOT borne out by the novel. Dracula seems comfortable wandering out in the daylight without bursting into flame.
Still, on the whole Stoker succeeds. The novel is a rewarding one, and, despite its age, actually offers some genuine chills. If it's not perfect (which it's not), it virtues greatly outshine its flaws.
|
