ePub
English language
Published 2012 by Duke Classics.
While Bram Stoker didn't invent the vampire, his 1897 novel Dracula has been the defining force in the popularity and evolution of vampire mythology today. The story of its infamous antagonist Count Dracula is told in the form of letters and diary entries.
... But it was far too dry for me. It also took me ages to read it, and I kinda glossed over the end because I wanted to be done with it. I'm going to give it another shot when Dracula Daily comes by again.
Kaum ein Werk der Horrorliteratur war je so einflussreich, oder eben so innovativ, wie dieses. Obwohl Stoker sich seine Themen und seine erzählerischen Ideen zusammengestohlen hat, ist es ihm beim Zusammenfügen gelungen, einen makellosen Archetyp zu entwickeln: Vom Aufbau, der von Unbeschwertheit über Sorge, Vorahnung, Furcht und schließlich Schrecken bis zum vernichtenden Ende unaufhaltsam und folgerichtig bleibt, über die Charakterisierungen (die Unschuld, die Integrität, der Wahnsinn, die Dekadenz), bis hin zu den Beschreibungen nimmt er allen zukünftigen Horrorerzählern den Wind aus den Segeln. Zudem gelingt es ihm, eine echte Bindung zu seinen Figuren herzustellen, so dass die Grausamkeiten, die ihnen zugefügt werden, dem Leser ehrlich zu schaffen machen.
Dabei hat der Roman offensichtlich viele Schwächen, und hier liegt die Chance, die so viele spätere Autoren nicht zu nutzen gewusst haben: Zum einen ist er sicherlich zu lang, zum anderen selbst für die Zeit zu süßlich und hölzern. Für einen reinen …
Kaum ein Werk der Horrorliteratur war je so einflussreich, oder eben so innovativ, wie dieses. Obwohl Stoker sich seine Themen und seine erzählerischen Ideen zusammengestohlen hat, ist es ihm beim Zusammenfügen gelungen, einen makellosen Archetyp zu entwickeln: Vom Aufbau, der von Unbeschwertheit über Sorge, Vorahnung, Furcht und schließlich Schrecken bis zum vernichtenden Ende unaufhaltsam und folgerichtig bleibt, über die Charakterisierungen (die Unschuld, die Integrität, der Wahnsinn, die Dekadenz), bis hin zu den Beschreibungen nimmt er allen zukünftigen Horrorerzählern den Wind aus den Segeln. Zudem gelingt es ihm, eine echte Bindung zu seinen Figuren herzustellen, so dass die Grausamkeiten, die ihnen zugefügt werden, dem Leser ehrlich zu schaffen machen.
Dabei hat der Roman offensichtlich viele Schwächen, und hier liegt die Chance, die so viele spätere Autoren nicht zu nutzen gewusst haben: Zum einen ist er sicherlich zu lang, zum anderen selbst für die Zeit zu süßlich und hölzern. Für einen reinen Schocker, als der er ursprünglich ja ausgelegt war, erreicht er aber sehr viel und das sehr effektiv.
На удивление, даже сейчас довольно годно. Хотя Ван Хелсинг местами явно переигрывает 😅
Самого Дракулы в сюжете, прямо скажем, довольно мало.
Erderaz irakurri nuen liburu hau eta orain euskaraz. Lehen atala gustatu zait gehiago bigarrena baino. Nahaztuta nengoen hainbeste izen ezberdinekin. Agian pertsonai gehiego zegoen. Uste dut ez dela zaila B1 mailarako.
The gold standard of vampire and horror books. What can I say? It’s a great adventure that focuses more on the friendship of the hunters than on Dracula himself.
Urrrrrgh. I read this via Dracula Daily, which reorganised the text into daily emails of the journal entries as they occurred in real time (May to Nov), so perhaps my view of the story is coloured by that. But my gosh this was a dull read.
It did show promise at the start, and I was intrigued and somewhat excited to be finally reading one of the most famous vampire stories of note, but as time moved forward, it got less and less interesting and more and more of a chore to get through.
Dear friends, this book, this book right here, is a great example of why some people don't like reading classics. Perhaps in its day (1897) it was considered well written and fraught with terror, but reading it today in 2022, it a slog and honestly, not worth your time.
Really long journal entries (which were doubly …
Urrrrrgh. I read this via Dracula Daily, which reorganised the text into daily emails of the journal entries as they occurred in real time (May to Nov), so perhaps my view of the story is coloured by that. But my gosh this was a dull read.
It did show promise at the start, and I was intrigued and somewhat excited to be finally reading one of the most famous vampire stories of note, but as time moved forward, it got less and less interesting and more and more of a chore to get through.
Dear friends, this book, this book right here, is a great example of why some people don't like reading classics. Perhaps in its day (1897) it was considered well written and fraught with terror, but reading it today in 2022, it a slog and honestly, not worth your time.
Really long journal entries (which were doubly long in the format Dracula Daily was using) where nothing of note happened, men (of the time of course) being overbearing about their women folk, the women being the perfect example of why some men think women are emotional creatures who need to be sheltered. Dracula himself, barely makes an appearance in the entire novel. It is centred wholly around Mina and the men who apparently loved her so much that they "did dare much for her sake." Ugh.
I was very tempted to DNF this when it got mid way through the October chapters. But I persisted, even when my eyes started glazing over from boredom, because this is a beloved classic. It had to get better right? almost half a million people rated this 5 stars, so there must be something that redeems it, right? Right???
But, no. There was nothing. I'm giving it 1 star because of the all the vampire works it somehow inspired, and an additional 1 star out of 5 for the story itself because all this book did was convince me that Bram Stoker is an energy vampire because reading this book sucked the life right out me.
Just a list of thoughts I had as I thought them:
Just a list of thoughts I had as I thought them:
Highly recommended; 4 out of 5 vampire bats for general audiences.
Content warning Very minor and inconsequential spoilers
Finished Dracula, my first time since reading it in like 6th grade on Project Gutenberg so I really didn't remember anything. Honestly wasn't expecting much in terms of horror and suspense by today's standards, but a few sections (the opening castle introduction, the arrival of the ghost ship in Britain) were genuinely effective horror IMO. Good consistent pacing for most of it, held my attention at least—too many older novels have long dry spells that are a struggle to get through.
There were a lot of instances where I thought Mina would be a “strong and independent woman” and take charge of the hunt or something, but it being written in 1898 I suppose that never would've happened. As it is I'm surprised that the book even portrays her the way it does.
I also found it very frustrating that they refused to leave the asylum after Dracula got invited in, if they had just gone somewhere else without random lunatics then he wouldn't be able to get in at them! Why stay there! Aaah!
Good lord! Abraham Van Helsing is a bore! If I hear anymore of his chatter of child brain vs man brain, I'm gonna invite Dracula to my house for dinner, preferably with Van Helsing as the meal.
The original novel is a great read. Not just for the way it codified modern vampire lore. But for the way it's built entirely out of diary entries, letters, news fragments, telegrams and so on. For the way it shows modern science coming to grips with ancient superstition and figuring out how to deal with it. For showing an early example of a woman participating in her own rescue. And for some of the parts that didn't make it into general pop culture. (Count Dracula spends an awful lot of time in a shipping box.)
In some senses it's the written-word equivalent of the "found footage" horror genre. Except the "sources" are wildly varying. John and Mina write their journals and letters to each other in shorthand. Business letters are of course written formally. Dr. Seward keeps an audio diary on a phonograph. Van Helsing's speech is rendered with every …
The original novel is a great read. Not just for the way it codified modern vampire lore. But for the way it's built entirely out of diary entries, letters, news fragments, telegrams and so on. For the way it shows modern science coming to grips with ancient superstition and figuring out how to deal with it. For showing an early example of a woman participating in her own rescue. And for some of the parts that didn't make it into general pop culture. (Count Dracula spends an awful lot of time in a shipping box.)
In some senses it's the written-word equivalent of the "found footage" horror genre. Except the "sources" are wildly varying. John and Mina write their journals and letters to each other in shorthand. Business letters are of course written formally. Dr. Seward keeps an audio diary on a phonograph. Van Helsing's speech is rendered with every quirk of his Dutch accent and speech patterns. And then halfway through the book, when all the major characters finally come together...they collate all the documents and Mina transcribes them on a typewriter, and they pass around the first half of the book so they can all read up on what the rest of them have been doing! (Literally getting them all on the same page.)
That's not to say it's flawless. It's unclear why some victims rise again as vampires while others don't. While the science/superstition contrast works well for the most part, eastern Europeans don't exactly come off very well. Especially when they'd talk about the "gypsies" carrying Dracula around Transylvania. I mean, it could have been a lot worse, but it's still jarring.
Overall, though, it's an engaging read, whether approached as a book or, as Dracula Daily did, one day's letters at a time from May 3 through November 7.
Dracula Daily: draculadaily.substack.com/archive
This review on my website: hyperborea.org/reviews/books/dracula/
I had never given classic horror a go before, but this one was a pleasant surprise. The original Dracula story was something I thought I knew, elements like Dracula’s castle and the power possessed by that monster make an appearance here, but despite what you might expect of the original vampire, the book is still filled with great characters and moments that were truly nerve-wracking.
I couldn’t help but read faster and faster at times where the tension raised up, hoping for it to end when it was only getting worse. But its not all bad, there is always hope, and the determination of the characters to defend their loved ones and the future of humanity from the reign of the un-dead, is just great, but a few moments of old English were a little hard to read.
I listened to different audiobooks while reading, which was quite atmospheric too. …
I had never given classic horror a go before, but this one was a pleasant surprise. The original Dracula story was something I thought I knew, elements like Dracula’s castle and the power possessed by that monster make an appearance here, but despite what you might expect of the original vampire, the book is still filled with great characters and moments that were truly nerve-wracking.
I couldn’t help but read faster and faster at times where the tension raised up, hoping for it to end when it was only getting worse. But its not all bad, there is always hope, and the determination of the characters to defend their loved ones and the future of humanity from the reign of the un-dead, is just great, but a few moments of old English were a little hard to read.
I listened to different audiobooks while reading, which was quite atmospheric too.
(Review originally written April 1st, 2022)
Adored it. I did, however, notice quite a few people mention it was at times repetitive but found that not to be the case per se. The "repetition" within the book made it feel more real as not every day is extremely different from the one before it; hence, it felt to me more authentic.
The beginning was interesting enough. Jonathan Harker was a character I felt like I could follow. Once Dracula launched into his playful torture, I was excited and had high hopes for the story. But alas, Dracula is more of a presence than he is present in this story. I understand the whole thing is supposed to be about paranoia. I understand it, yet I detest it. Dracula is such a witty character and for him to be actually present for so little of the story bothers me to no end. Instead, we get to follow way too many characters which more or less serve the same purpose. We also get to read everything three times over since this book is not at all concerned with dulling out the reader with perpetual, senseless, and borderline indecent repetition. At least reading all of it was somewhat bearable considering the style is digestible …
The beginning was interesting enough. Jonathan Harker was a character I felt like I could follow. Once Dracula launched into his playful torture, I was excited and had high hopes for the story. But alas, Dracula is more of a presence than he is present in this story. I understand the whole thing is supposed to be about paranoia. I understand it, yet I detest it. Dracula is such a witty character and for him to be actually present for so little of the story bothers me to no end. Instead, we get to follow way too many characters which more or less serve the same purpose. We also get to read everything three times over since this book is not at all concerned with dulling out the reader with perpetual, senseless, and borderline indecent repetition. At least reading all of it was somewhat bearable considering the style is digestible and smooth.
a fantastic full-cast reading of Dracula. beautiful!
One of my favorite books of the year. Simply outstanding.
