The Definitive annotated edition of Bram Stoker's classic novel Plume book
Paperback, 484 pages
English language
Published April 8, 1993 by Plume, Byron Press.
From Leonard Wolf, the world's premier Dracula scholar
This diary style book by Bram Stoker continues to put fear into the hearts of many who read it. Count Dracula after acquiring land in London near Carfax Abbey is wreaking havoc on innocents. Dr. Abraham Van Helsing recognizes the counts calling card and the hunt to destroy this centuries old vampire begins.
Well, actually not as bad as I remember from 10 years ago. It's certainly very verbose and the truly interesting events are few and far between. But it does a good job at establishing the mysterious atmosphere.
I read this when I was about 13. It scared me silly. I couldn't sleep for days. That a book can have that effect - with no visual component or ominous music - says a lot for its author. Vampires were terrifying back in the days before they all became cops or detectives with sensitive souls. I haven't had the courage to read it again.
After a lifetime of hearing the name Dracula, especially at Halloween, it finally occurred to me to read the original, by Bram Stoker. (This was in part because I'd received a Nook last Christmas, and this is one of the many titles that are public domain.)
Anyway, I was impressed that such horror was dreamed up in the late 1800's. The story is told by way of journal entries and letters in a style that now seems quaint, and some of the tone, especially that of Belgian professor Van Helsing, is flowery, wordy, and overly dramatic. His journal has a thick accent, as well, which makes for slower reading.
The story comes together quite well, and the imagery is successfully creepy. This tale is also a very religious one, which isn't surprising, given that everyone knows how a vampire abhors a crucifix. Still, it is more overtly Christian than I …
After a lifetime of hearing the name Dracula, especially at Halloween, it finally occurred to me to read the original, by Bram Stoker. (This was in part because I'd received a Nook last Christmas, and this is one of the many titles that are public domain.)
Anyway, I was impressed that such horror was dreamed up in the late 1800's. The story is told by way of journal entries and letters in a style that now seems quaint, and some of the tone, especially that of Belgian professor Van Helsing, is flowery, wordy, and overly dramatic. His journal has a thick accent, as well, which makes for slower reading.
The story comes together quite well, and the imagery is successfully creepy. This tale is also a very religious one, which isn't surprising, given that everyone knows how a vampire abhors a crucifix. Still, it is more overtly Christian than I had expected.
It is an intriguing experience, reading a novel for the first time after already having so many presumptions about its subject. It could have been a disappointing experience, but it was not; this novel lived up to my scary expectations.
Quite enjoyed the story, and the way it's told through the diaries of the characters, surprisingly fast-paced and fluid for that. A good classic, and sufficiently frightening.
Took me forever to read but I think that's because my mind is on other things. The passages where people are speaking with an accent were hard to understand but overall a wonderful classic. Definitely worth a read if you like modern vampire fiction.
Before the Twilight series there were stories about Vampires that actually were good. The most famous of these was the story of Dracula by Bram Stoker. Structurally it is an epistolary novel, that is, told as a series of letters, diary entries, ships’ logs, etc. Literary critics have examined many themes in the novel, such as the role of women in Victorian culture, conventional and conservative sexuality, immigration, colonialism, postcolonialism and folklore. Although Stoker did not invent the vampire, the novel’s influence on the popularity of vampires has been singularly responsible for many theatrical, film and television interpretations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
This book was a long one and at times I admit to struggling with it. I was very interested in the origins of Dracula, but I think there was so much involved in this book that at times I don’t think I enjoyed reading it. Overall …
Before the Twilight series there were stories about Vampires that actually were good. The most famous of these was the story of Dracula by Bram Stoker. Structurally it is an epistolary novel, that is, told as a series of letters, diary entries, ships’ logs, etc. Literary critics have examined many themes in the novel, such as the role of women in Victorian culture, conventional and conservative sexuality, immigration, colonialism, postcolonialism and folklore. Although Stoker did not invent the vampire, the novel’s influence on the popularity of vampires has been singularly responsible for many theatrical, film and television interpretations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
This book was a long one and at times I admit to struggling with it. I was very interested in the origins of Dracula, but I think there was so much involved in this book that at times I don’t think I enjoyed reading it. Overall it was a decent book but I wouldn’t consider it a must read.
It's better to know everything from the original, the book that created the most famous character on the Horror Litherature, and know the strange peculiarities that this character possess. I've seen the Coppola movie, based on this book, and to learn the real story from the movie is something that you should try for yourself.
I read this one after reading [book:Frankenstein], as a sort of classic SF/F/H kick. Oh, so awesome. There's not a single movie that does it justice.
The first part of Dracula is absolutely amazing. I read the book when I was a college film student, and I used to think about how I would film the book, and mainly I thought about those two chapters. I know just how I would film the first chapter with Dracula. I know how I would film the chapter in which the woman keeps mysteriously losing blood (modernized, so it could happen in a hospital, a striking contrast to the first scene in the crumbling castle.
As for the rest of the book, I figured I'd hire a writer to come up with something, because outside of the wonderful scenes with Renfield, there is nothing in the rest of the book worth filming, or reading.
Stoker created a great villain in Dracula, but after that first chapter he seems to have lost interest in him; Dracula is spoken of more …
The first part of Dracula is absolutely amazing. I read the book when I was a college film student, and I used to think about how I would film the book, and mainly I thought about those two chapters. I know just how I would film the first chapter with Dracula. I know how I would film the chapter in which the woman keeps mysteriously losing blood (modernized, so it could happen in a hospital, a striking contrast to the first scene in the crumbling castle.
As for the rest of the book, I figured I'd hire a writer to come up with something, because outside of the wonderful scenes with Renfield, there is nothing in the rest of the book worth filming, or reading.
Stoker created a great villain in Dracula, but after that first chapter he seems to have lost interest in him; Dracula is spoken of more than seen for the rest of the book. Instead, the story is given over to a bunch of stiffs, pasty Christians whose deaths are no sadder than the melting of a mannequin.
