Gothic masterpiece ! A little harder to read that the average Anne Rice work, but completely worth it. This, my friend is the book that started it ... (show more)
Dracula
Dracula is perhaps almost as interesting regarded historically as the product of a specific time as it is engaging to continuing generations of readers in a 'timeless' fashion. In her introduction Byron first discusses the famous novel as an expression not of universal fears and desires but of specifically late nineteenth-century concerns. At the same time she is entirely attuned to the ways in which, however much Dracula is a Victorian text, Dracula is a very twentieth-century character, a r... (show more)
Dracula is perhaps almost as interesting regarded historically as the product of a specific time as it is engaging to continuing generations of readers in a 'timeless' fashion. In her introduction Byron first discusses the famous novel as an expression not of universal fears and desires but of specifically late nineteenth-century concerns. At the same time she is entirely attuned to the ways in which, however much Dracula is a Victorian text, Dracula is a very twentieth-century character, a representative of modernity and of the future. (show less)
Related Media
Photo Gallery
Similar Books
You might like these
Reviews (See all 4,266) Write a reviewfor this
It's a hit!
No, it's a flop!
The very definition of a one-hit wonder, Stoker was unable to write anything worth reading after Dracula, and even Dracula wears thin. It is still ... (show more)
The very definition of a one-hit wonder, Stoker was unable to write anything worth reading after Dracula, and even Dracula wears thin. It is still not clear why he gets the credit for creating the vampire myth, given that Dracula itself was inspired by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla. It would be more accurate to say that Stoker "popularized" vampires, and was himself a 19th-century pop star. Try reading any of Stoker's later work, and you will understand just how lucky he got with Dracula. Read any of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories--which were readily available to Stoker, by the way, many having preceded the publication of Dracula by decades--and you cannot help but recognize the difference in quality. Compare Stoker to his contemporary H. G. Wells, and the evidence is even more damning. So why was Dracula so successful? Largely because it arrived on the scene during the height of Britain's paranoia about foreigner's invading the decaying empire, as well as a time of heightened sensitivity to the vampire myth elsewhere in the world, given the number of deaths by tuberculosis. The novel is definitely worth reading, but it is certainly no work of art. (show less)
More Reviews
-
I love this book, because it really gives a great snapshot of the cultural values of the time. The characters are very archetypal, and it's very clear how the standards were for behavior - especially for women - at the time when Stoker wrote the book. Look at the lesson I learned: The sensual, vivacious Lucy is infected and sentenced to die. Mina, who is so sensible and staid that she's described as thinking almost as a man does (but isn't sexy, except in the movie version), is infected but s... (show more)
I love this book, because it really gives a great snapshot of the cultural values of the time. The characters are very archetypal, and it's very clear how the standards were for behavior - especially for women - at the time when Stoker wrote the book. Look at the lesson I learned: The sensual, vivacious Lucy is infected and sentenced to die. Mina, who is so sensible and staid that she's described as thinking almost as a man does (but isn't sexy, except in the movie version), is infected but survives. Exciting women with many boyfriends don't last long; boring married women have a chance at longevity.
Beyond all that, it's a ripping fun read. I think there's a little too much sitting around chatting for my taste, but when there's action, it moves fast. The prose is tight, and Stoker sets the mood for danger nicely. (show less)
Already read
-
For the most part, I was really into this book. The scenery was vividly described, and there were some genuinely scary moments. Towards the middle, the storyline slowed down a little too much for my tastes but it picked up again towards the end.
Now for the bad news. Mina's character was as dry as a mummified sand snake in the middle of the Sahara. And Dracula? Ooo. I just think that if a man lived for 400+ years he would have developed some kind of personality and have SOMETHING to ... (show more)
For the most part, I was really into this book. The scenery was vividly described, and there were some genuinely scary moments. Towards the middle, the storyline slowed down a little too much for my tastes but it picked up again towards the end.
Now for the bad news. Mina's character was as dry as a mummified sand snake in the middle of the Sahara. And Dracula? Ooo. I just think that if a man lived for 400+ years he would have developed some kind of personality and have SOMETHING to offer the world. It seems old Drac just sat around for centuries being bitter ... and I don't know, but I like my vampires to have something else going on. And his motivations were simply to destroy the world? Naawwww. Maybe the problem was that Stoker gave him no voice whatsover. Boring ol' Mina got to narrate about half the book but Dracula didn't pen one letter. Perhaps if he had he would have been able to explain himself... but Stoker didn't want to make him likeable. Either way, I prefer my Dracula sexed up, Francis-Ford-Coppola-style.
That said! I do think this book is a great one to read, in part because it helps one to see how the role of vampires in literature has changed over the years and partly because Stoker really knows how to write. Also, Hollywood has repeatedly left out lots of key scenes in the retelling of this story and it was nice to see the story as Stoker intended. I just wanted a little vampire romance. Is that so much to ask? Ahh I guess Anne Rice spoiled me. (show less)
Already read
- See all reviews
Conversations
Please log in to join the conversation
-
I only want to read the one with illustrations by Ben Templesmith, though! It just brings the whole thing together. He is THE BEST comic book artist. His illustrations in that book are so amazing.
Reidi K. Bezak 29 days ago -
-
-
Stoker speaking through characters...
Warning: Contains complete plot spoiler, so if you haven't read the book you probably don't want to read this.
Stoker really speaks through his characters. The most obvious of which are the two women. Taking a look at the characterizations of the two women is important. Lucy's mind is childlike. She is a damsel in distress who can't do anything to help herself and the men fall all over themselves worshiping her. Mina is somewhat self-sufficient and quite intelligent. She only continues to increase in those characteristics as the story goes on. The men do begin to turn their attention to her and even try to shelter her until they realize that it is detrimental to do so. During the time that Stoker wrote Dracula there was quite a lot of significant things going on in literature that changed social attitudes toward women and social interaction as well. Henrik Isben wrote the play A Doll's House. At the time, before his play came out, an idealicized woman was one who embodied the qualities that Lucy carries. Husband adoring (not that that's a bad thing if you adore your husband, but the other qualities added to it make it upsetting), childlike, helpless and somewhat unintelligent. The purpose of A Doll's House was to expose to the world that women are not that way. Most men already knew that, but it didn't stop them from wishing for it. Hahaha! (I'm sorry!) Also Anton Chekhov came out with The Seagull, a play that completely changed acting from dramatic movements and ways of speaking to signify emotions to what it really looks like in real life. And not only that, but there is no antagonist. Everyone creates their own problems, which how life is, as boring as that can be. The whole play is about social interactions and how people respond from one to another as it really is in real life. There was no dressing it up. So back to Stoker. He kills Lucy half way through the book and her lover Lord Godalming is left distraught over her loss. It's really obvious, given the social and literary climate that he's saying, "We're done with that, it's over," and then shows the men trying to adjust to the new and more realistic version of who women are.
Mina marries Jonathan Harker. He seems like an ordinary Joe Schmoe at the beginning of the book but then gets weaker and weaker. Stoker even seems to set it up to kill him off and the accidental flirtation between Mina and Dr. Seward (a very strong and capable man) gets you ready for a relationship between them that is satisfying to the reader. Then it doesn’t happen. He completely leaves you hanging. It took me a while to catch on. If he didn't do the things that he set triggers for, then there must have been something he really wanted the reader to pick up on. There was a reason he left Jonathan alive. But I have to deviate to get to that.
What was the deal with those other three men? What was their purpose? Dr. Seward, Van Helsing, and Mr. Morris are all very capable, intelligent, brawny men and I must say very selfless and good without much reason to be so. (Stoker gives a little reasoning behind that but it doesn't come off very strong and I feel like that is the point. He wants you to question it.) Anyone of those men could have taken the story in his own hands and become the hero of them all. Nearing the end Dr. Seward is fleshed out a little more regarding those qualities than the other two, but Stoker chooses not to take advantage of that. How come?
There are two things I get from this. The first is the resolve to why Jonathan lives. He lives because he is a real man. Stoker brings into balance our view of ourselves and is saying that, yes men had the wrong idea about women, but with Mina's flirtation with Dr. Seward, who is a typified hero and therefore, not really a real man, women also had (and have) the wrong idea about men. Women are attracted to the idealized man (Heterosexual women, I should say, but then, Heterosexuals are the target audience of his book), but most men don't have the combo of goodness, strength, and intelligence all rolled into one, like a christ figure does. I would also like to make the point that men like to see themselves as the idealized man or we wouldn't have such an abundance of stories and blockbuster films with a Christ figure. Lucy and Dr. Seward are two extremes. Two ideals. Although both can be appealing for both sexes (for me, one of them is quite a stretch), neither are accurate of who we are.
The other thing I get out of this is that he is talking about the weakness of mankind. We want to believe that we have the power to take out anything ourselves. It's only fair to note here that he isn't saying that women are strong and men are weak. That's not the case at all. He gives Mina vulnerability and weakness as well. But Stoker is showing the reader that even after everything the characters can do, they almost exhaust themselves in their efforts to overcome Dracula. It requires the combined effort of all of the men in the book, including the weak Jonathan and our newly defined woman, Mina, to bring down Dracula. They only succeed when Dracula is immobilized. At his absolute weakest do they have any effect on him.
I want to take minute to talk about Dracula and his minions at their height. Dr. Van Helsing has a lot of defenses against them. This could be stretched to be symbolic of religion, especially because the first defense that was shown in the book was given to the weak (Jonathan) by a simple and weak, and decedents of an ancient people -a religious symbol -the cross. Not all of Van Helsing’s defenses are sure -like garlic, and a lot could be said here about religious ideologies. But the point I’m trying to make is that, the one thing that was absolutely sure to hinder Dracula, which never failed, was a symbol universally acknowledged in the western world to represent religion (albeit a specific kind). So only God can really supersede the Satanic figure and the Christ figure belongs to Christ and not man.
So many, many people write with a Christ figure, and it makes some really entertaining stories, but here, finally, is a book about the effects, power and limitations of the Satanic figure. I found it really refreshing, once I finally got what was going on, to read a book where the tag line, "only one man could save them all" couldn't be applied. I would say this book is more about the struggle of mankind to understand self, others, and to overcome personal obstacles while recognizing that it requires something outside oneself to really succeed, whether that be a 12 step program or God or friends or whatever.
Facebook User about 1 year ago
Lists
This book has been added to these lists:
More Stuff
About Us
LivingSocial.com is a social discovery and cataloging network that allows people to review and share their favorite movies, books, games, music, restaurants and beer











