Dracula: The Original 1897 Edition (A Bram Stoker Classic Novel)

"Dracula" was not the first vampire novel, nor was it Bram Stoker's first book.But he managed to craft the ultimate vampire novel, which has spawned countless movies, spinoffs, and books that follow the blueprint of the Transylvanian count -- not to mention the vampire mythology and tropes that are still the standard to this day (despite Stephenie Meyer's best efforts). Eerie, horrifying and genuinely mysterious, "Dracula" is undoubtedly the most striking and unique vampire novel yet penned.Real estate agent Jonathan Harker arrives in Transylvania, to arrange a London house sale to Count Dracula. But as the days go by, Harker witnesses increasingly horrific events, leading him to believe that Dracula is not actually human. His fiancee Mina arrives in Transylvania, and finds that he has been feverish. Meanwhile the count has vanished -- along with countless boxes filled with dirt.And soon afterwards, strange things happen: a ship piloted by a dead man crashes on the shore, after a mysterious thing killed the crew. A lunatic talks about "Him" coming. And Mina's pal Lucy dies of mysterious blood loss, only to come back as an undead seductress. Dracula has arrived in England -- then the center of the Western world -- and intends to make it his own..."Dracula" is the grandaddy of Lestat and other elegantly alluring bloodsuckers, but that isn't the sole reason why this novel is a classic. It's also incredibly atmospheric, and very well-written. Not only is it very freaky, in an ornate Victorian style, but it is also full of restrained, quiet horror and creepy eroticism. What's more, it's shaped the portrayal of vampires in movies and books, even to this day.Despite already knowing what's going on for the first half of the book, it's actually kind of creepy to see these people whose lives are being disrupted by Dracula, but don't know about vampires. It's a bit tempting to yell "It's a vampire, you idiots!" every now and then, but you can't really blame them. Then the second half kicks in, with accented professor Van Helsing taking our heroes on a quest to save Mina from Dracula.And along the way, while our heroes try to figure stuff out, Stoker spins up all these creepy hints of Dracula's arrival. Though he wrote in the late 19th-century manner, very verbose and a bit stuffy, his skill shines through. The book is crammed with intense, evocative language, with moments like Dracula creeping down a wall, or the dead captain found tied to the wheel. Once read, they stick in your mind throughout the book.It's also a credit to Stoker that he keeps his characters from seeming like idiots or freaks, which they could have easily seemed like. Instead, he puts little moments of humanity in them, like Van Helsing admitting that his wife is in an asylum. Even the letters and diaries are written in different styles; for example, Seward's is restrained and analytical, while Mina's is exuberant and bright.Even Dracula himself is an overpowering presence despite his small amount of actual screen time, and not just as a vampire -- Stoker presents him as passionate, intense, malignant, and probably the smartest person in the entire book. If Van Helsing hadn't thwarted him, he probably would have taken over the world -- not the Victorian audience's ideal ending.Intelligent, frightening and very well-written, "Dracula" is the well-deserved godfather of all modern vampire books and movies -- and its unique villain still dwarfs the more recent undead.

First a disclaimer: Even though I have written a vampire-themed novel based on traditional Balkan folklore descriptions of vampires, I deliberately put off reading "Dracula" out of a desire not to be influenced by Stoker's interpretation of the myth. Stoker's descriptions of 19th century Eastern Europe, i.e., Transylvania, Romania, Varna, seemed to ring largely true, and it seemed he had done some reading on the local folk traditions.Plot:The plot of the book is quite a bit different from most films that bear the title "Dracula". Why? Probably because Stoker's ending is rather lame. The story gradually builds and builds and builds, and then they drive away a bunch of mangy gypsies from around a wagon and stake the Count in broad daylight in his casket. That's boring.Troubling Questions:How did Jonathan Harker escape from Castle Dracula? That was never made particularly clear?Why did Van Helsing have to import garlic flowers from Holland? The flowers don't repel vampires: the garlic itself does.I don't quite understand how the three sexy female vampires in see-through gossamer dresses fit in, other than to titillate the 19th century audience. And why did they stay in Transylvania? Why didn't they accompany Vlad to London? Certainly they would have wanted to do some shopping in Kensington or at Harrods. And wouldn't they have been jealous that Vlad was running around making new female vampires? Certainly they would have been powerful enough to leave Castle Dracula.Why did Vlad choose to travel by boat? Why not by train? He would have arrived everywhere far quicker and with greater ease. That illogicality is driven home at the end, when Van Helsing & Co., rush back to Transylvania and get there before Vlad, even though the Count had a healthy head start.If Vlad can walk around during the day, why didn't he rise from his earthen-filled box when the wagon was surrounded and try to defend himself. Certainly he wasn't that sound a sleeper.How could they kill Vlad by cutting his throat and impaling him in the heart with a Bowie knife? Everyone in Eastern Europe knows that impalement must be done with a stake made from a very specific type of wood. If you would like to know which type of wood, read my book Kiss of the Butterfly. Style:Stoker's style is difficult for many 21st century readers to follow. It appears that he never met a run-on sentence he didn't like, nor did he let grammar get in the way of his narrative. He is extremely wordy, and uses thirty or forty words when one would suffice. Although this style was sadly all too common at the time, Stoker is a particularly bad offender, even by Victorian standards. He uses the flowery politeness of genteel English upper and middle-class society until the reader is reduced to stupor. If one were to remove all the superfluous compliments, niceties, and praises sung to the virtues and nobility of the opposite sex, as well as completely inane references to how much each of Lucy's three suitors truly loved her and how she was the paragon of womanhood, then the novel "Dracula" becomes a short story.The characters are so busy being excessively polite and complimentary to each other, and so busy hiding trivialities from each other out of fear of offending someone that they fail to see the obvious, i.e., that something dreadful is happening to Lucy. I mean, come on, Lucy gets blood transfusions from four separate men, and they still haven't figured out that something unusual is going on?Mina is certainly my favorite character, as she is level-headed, practical, and usually seems to figure out what is going on before the others. She can also take shorthand and has all the train schedules memorized: what more could Jonathan Harker want from his bride? Van Helsing reminded me of two old professors of mine, but Stoker's attempt to write a Dutch accent is so comically bad that it detracts from the story. Arthur, Quincy, John, and Jonathan all seemed like one-dimensional cardboard characters out of a Dan Brown novel. After a while I began cheering for Renfield, as this fly-eating weirdo was at least well-developed. The Count, too, also showed promise, although only as seen through the eyes of Dr. John Seward.Stoker tells the story entirely through diary entries, letters, telegrams, etc. This seems to work at first, until you realize that nobody puts that much information in a diary, unless they have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Having said all that, I liked the book. It was a fun read, which is what matters.

This is a great story which would have been immeasurable improved if all the waffle had been removed when published. In my opinion the main story should have been cut to just approximately a third of the overall text. I found over half of this book a huge drag, following the initial excellent part when we are introduced to Dracula in Transylvania and Jonathan’s escape followed by hours of tedious drivel until it finally picks up again for the end pursuit. Dracula should have stayed in his castle and not gone to London and made it a much easier and enjoyable read and saved the reader hours of mind numbing nonsense, well for me at least. Finally Bram Stoker’s views of women make uncomfortable and pathetic reading in the 21st century and made me question his sanity even when considering the mindset of the late 19th century. Overall very hard work and not a patch on the similar but much older novel Frankenstein which is far more readable and enjoyable.

Dracula, one of the best and most influential books I have ever read!Quite a statement that, so let’s look at it in a little more detail.The book is written as a series of diary and journal entries in the first person, and from several different perspectives. The characters are both male and female, one being a solicitor, one, a Doctor who runs a lunatic Asylum, and then there's Dr Val Helsing from Amsterdam.Mina Murray and Lucy Westenra's diary entries, add both intrigue and passion, we have the somewhat delicious English language, (as it was in late Victorian England), a love quadrangle, rather than a love triangle, desperation, sadness and remorse, but above all, we have Count Dracula.We all know the story of course, or do we?I first read this book over twenty years ago and in that time I'd forgotten most it, remembering just the bare bones.I had a vague recollection of Renfield and the asylum, the predicament in which Johnathan Harker found himself in, in the depth of the unforgiving Carpathian mountains, but I'd forgotten the pace of the book, the shear depth of fear the poor souls experienced, as they battled their way to Carfax Abbey, and then across Europe, to confront what must be, one of literature's most revered villains.And let us not forget one of the all-time best chapters in literary history, chapter 7, where the description of the storm and the landing of the Demeter, (Dracula's ship), at Whitby Harbour, is told as a news article in a local newspaper.Reading this book again, got me thinking about how many stories, films, television programs, cartoons, and comics there must be out there, that have been influenced by this book? Hundred, thousands maybe, who knows! From the obvious like, Salam's Lot and the Twilight saga, through Richard Matheson's sublime, I am Legend, to Justin Cronin's less obvious but equally exquisite, The Passage, to count (pun intended) but a few. (My own short story, Lycanthrope, would never have materialised without this book).So, a solid five stars for Bram Stoker's Dracula then, and what a better time to start reading it, than on All Hallows’ Eve.Enjoy my fiendish friend, read deep.

Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. It was the year that marked Queen Victoria's 60th year on the throne, the birth of Frank Capra (Director of It's A Wonderful Life), the death of the German composer Johannes Brahms and the foundation of Italian football giants Juventus. 1897 also saw the Australian cricket team defeat England 4-1 in the Ashes. An interesting year then, but not the most interesting. I feel the same could be said for Bram Stoker's Dracula.The first section of the book where Jonathan Harker goes to Transylvania to assist Count Dracula in making preparations to buy a property in England is atmospheric, creepy and somewhat disturbing. Unfortunately, this only comprises less than a quarter of the book. The rest of it is a combination of diary entries and notes from the various other characters in the novel (including Harker but not including Count Dracula) and as such is reminiscent of other Victorian novels such as The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins.Unlike The Moonstone, I found the characters in Dracula to be largely insipid and one dimensional. There is the gung-ho American, the stiff-upper lip Englishman, the love-lorn Doctor, the courageous Lord and women who do nothing but adore these men in a thoroughly pathetic fashion. And then there is Van Helsing - a 72 year old Dutchman who is a self-proclaimed expert in Vampires and a sort of supernatural Sherlock Holmes. I have to say that I found the passages from Van Helsing to be at times unreadable with the author obviously attempting to proclaim Van Helsing's foreign roots by having him write his entries with constant errors in grammar. For a world-renowned Professor I would have thought he would have been a better linguist to be honest.I found the writing to be stilted at times and the vehicle of the various diary entries serves only to negate any possible tension that is created. The singular exception is Renfield - a wonderful character whose demise really signified for me the demise of my interest in the book.For a book that is supposed to be the seminal book on Vampires, It seems the invocation and general worship of 'God' is more prominent than any blood sucking fiend. Stereotypes abound.God is all-powerful, men are strong and brave, women are fortunate to be in such company and any foreign threat is to be disposed of in the name of virtue."How can women help loving men when they are so earnest, and so true, and so brave! And, too, it made me think of the wonderful power of money! What can it not do when basely used. I felt so thankful that Lord Godalming is rich, and both he and Mr Morris, who also has plenty of money, are willing to spend it so freely."In summary, I found Dracula to be lacking in drama, humour and flow. It was overwrought at times, melodramatic and, for a huge fan of 19th Century Literature such as myself, ultimately annoying. It had none of the depth and emotion of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley nor any of the poignancy of Jekyll and Hyde by Robert Louis Stephenson. The timing of the publication is what I think has propelled Dracula into the public conscience, coming as it did at the beginning of the film industry - the perfect example of 'right time, right place', where sensationalism and shock value would in time overcome any deficiency in style substance and worth. The Daily Mail was published for the first time, just a year earlier, in 1896. A co-incidence? Maybe...

I attempted to read this book when I was about twelve, as I was just becoming interested in ghosts and vampires but, I found it a bit hard going and gave up pretty quickly.I have returned to it, some thirty years later, having seen and read many vampire films and books over the years. There have been many versions of the Dracula story but, of course, This is the Original.At first it takes a little while to get used to the use of language but, we must remember that this was written over a hundred years ago in a time when people, in polite society, probably spoke this way. Once I got my head around the style, I was able to read it easy and enjoy the suspense.By today's standards, in a world where we are desensitised to horror stories, this book will probably be tame. However, I found it still full of suspense and can imagine that back when it was something new, it would have been an even more tense read indeed.I enjoyed the way we get to read the story through the diaries and letters of the characters. We get to know how they all think individually and how they all are perceived by each other.After the first half of the book, or so, the story does slow a little but, I persevered and it picked up again in the final quarter.This is not the best book I have ever read but, I am glad I did, because this is where it all started. You can see what ideas of a Vampire have been carried on into books and films that other people have developed and make the connections. Also, considering how long ago it was written and the language used, I think, it still stand it's ground against the great horror writings of modern day.

Favourite passages:"I long to go through the crowded streets of the mighty London, to be in the midst of the whirl and rush of humanity, to share its life, its change, its death, and all that makes it what it is." -"we both want to mingle our weeps over a wine glass" -"Count me in every time. I bear messages which will make both your ears tingle." -"He is evidently the Sir Oracle of them, and I should think must have been in his time a most dictatorial person. He will not admit anything, and down faces everybody. If he can't out-argue them he bullies them, and then takes their silence for agreement with his views." -"This was evidently local pleasantry, for the old man cackled over it, and his cronies joined in with gusto." -"He seems to have some settled scheme of his own, but what it is I do not know. His redeeming quality is a love of animals" -"For life be, after all, only a waitin' for somethin' else than what we're doin', and death be all that we can rightly depend on." -"We're going to drunk ourselves into oblivion" -"We learn from failure, not from success!" -"I have learned not to think little of any one's belief, no matter how strange it may be. I have tried to keep an open mind, and it is not the ordinary things of life that could close it" -"Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all, and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain." -"faith, 'that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue." -"Thank you it's very courtly of you!" -"Hey dear, would you hazard an opinion?" -"It will be a pleasure if we can so far deviate from our rules" -"Poor Mina told me just now, with the tears running down her dear cheeks, that it is in trouble and trial that our faith is tested." -"So much is already done." -"I did not myself know whether our lethal weapons would avail us anything." -