This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Dracula by Bram Stoker

Dracula (original 1897; edition 2011)

by Bram Stoker

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations / Mentions
24,69748879 (3.96)4 / 1636
Authors:Bram Stoker
Info:New York : Vantage Classics, 2011.
Collections:Your library
Tags:2019, Novel, Horror

Work details

Dracula by Bram Stoker (Author) (1897)

  1. 230
    Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (chrisharpe)
  2. 242
    Salem's Lot by Stephen King (JGKC, sturlington)
    sturlington: Stephen King's homage to Dracula.
  3. 210
    Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (MarcusBrutus)
  4. 247
    Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice (becca58203, Morteana)
  5. 130
    The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (HollyMS, HollyMS)
  6. 131
    In a Glass Darkly by Sheridan Le Fanu (daisycat)
    daisycat: 'Carmilla' is meant to be the inspiration for Bram Stoker's story.
  7. 110
    The Vampyre by John William Polidori (Andibook)
    Andibook: Polidori's The Vampyre is one of, if not the, oldest vampire novel. His ‘gentleman vampire,’ diverging from the more zombie-like vampire of folklore, influenced the entire genre – including the famous vampire Dracula.
  8. 110
    Renfield: Slave of Dracula by Barbara Hambly (Ape)
    Ape: Renfield's point of view.
  9. 100
    Dracula's Guest and Other Weird Tales by Bram Stoker (Sylak)
    Sylak: Contains the deleted first chapter removed before publication.
  10. 102
    The Turn of the Screw by Henry James (cammykitty)
  11. 80
    Dracula: Biography of Vlad the Impaler by Radu Florescu (myshelves)
  12. 60
    In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires by Raymond T. McNally (Booksloth)
  13. 60
    Varney the Vampyre or The Feast of Blood by James Malcolm Rymer (Sylak)
  14. 93
    The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (SandSing7)
  15. 50
    The Beetle by Richard Marsh (jonathankws)
    jonathankws: So much better than Dracula, this Gothic horror novel was published in the same year and was initially far more successful.
  16. 50
    Anno Dracula by Kim Newman (wertygol)
  17. 41
    The Insidious Doctor Fu-Manchu by Sax Rohmer (leigonj)
    leigonj: Both are adventure/ detective stories in which the heroes must battle to stop mysterious, evil, foreign antagonists striking at the heart of the British Empire.
  18. 63
    Let The Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist (mcenroeucsb)
  19. 31
    Winterwood by Patrick McCabe (edwinbcn)
  20. 31
    The Dracula Tape by Fred Saberhagen (myshelves)

(see all 25 recommendations)

Europe (248)
1890s (40)

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

English (466)  Spanish (7)  French (5)  German (5)  Portuguese (Portugal) (1)  Catalan (1)  Polish (1)  Slovak (1)  Finnish (1)  Italian (1)  Danish (1)  Hungarian (1)  Swedish (1)  All languages (492)
Showing 1-5 of 466 (next | show all)
Bram Stoker’s The Illustrated Dracula features illustrations from Jae Lee, who’s worked on X-Factor, Inhumans, and Fantastic Four: 1234 for Marvel Comics as well as other work for DC and Image Comics. The book itself reprints Stoker’s text, which uses the epistolary novel format that was popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and introduces the reader to Count Dracula, Jonathan and Mina Harker, Renfield, Abraham Van Helsing, and Lucy Westenra. Lee includes multiple black-and-white illustrations throughout the story as well as four full-color illustrations that capture the gothic, dreamlike quality of the narrative. Lee’s portrayal of Dracula appears to borrow from the depiction of Count Orlok in F.W. Murnau’s 1922 film, Nosferatu, rather than Stoker’s own description or the appearance of the historical Vlad Țepeș. Those benefits aside, there are some typographical errors throughout the work. That said, the illustrations and the high-quality materials of which this book is constructed make it a good gift edition for those new to the story or friends in need of a new copy. ( )
  DarthDeverell | Jul 16, 2019 |
I was absolutely captivated by this story from the very beginning and the characters are so well described that I couldn’t stop reading.

The cinema was my only exposure to this story before now and what can I say but the cinema destroyed these fascinating characters by either sidelining them, not including them or over sexualizing them for the entertainment value. Lucy and Mina are two of the strongest female characters that I have ever seen in literature and their friendship is wonderful. The gentlemen in this story are very courageous and it is amazing how determined they were to see Dracula destroyed because it was the right thing to do and not for revenge.

My only con is there are times that the author gets a little wordy with some of his side stories and conversations that I almost wanted to skip some of it.

This is a great performance to listen to. All the actors not only had to act out their main part but also any of the other characters when the story was being told from the journal writer’s point of view. The actors did a great job of maintaining each characters personalities and subtleties no matter which actor was speaking for the character. It is exceptionally well done.
( )
  TVNerd95 | Jul 6, 2019 |
Bram Stoker


Oxford University Press, Paperback [2011].

8vo. xlii+391 pp. Edited by Roger Luckhurst with Introduction [vii-xxxii] and Notes [363-91]. Appendix: “Dracula’s Guest” (1914) [352-62]. Cover: from F. W. Murnau’s classic silent film Nosferatu (1922).

First published, 1897.
First published as a World’s Classics paperback, 1986.
Reissued as an Oxford’s World Classics paperback, 1998 & 2008.
This edition first published, 2011.


Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
Timeline of Vampire Literature before Dracula
A Chronology of Bram Stoker


Appendix: ‘Dracula’s Guest’ (1914)
Explanatory Notes


It may be reasonably asked, given my habit of finding vampires the epitome of dullness, why I have read that novel at all. No reason except curiosity. Having recently been on a classic horror diet, finally reading Jekyll and Hyde (1886) and Frankenstein (1818) after years of excuses for not doing so, I thought I might have a look at the greatest vampire classic of all time. Aren’t these the Holy Trinity of nineteenth-century horror classics? I wouldn’t know, but I am told they are.

To be honest, I didn’t expect this novel to be any good. I stand corrected. It is good – sort of. The structure is ingenious and effective. The whole story, which covers the whole Europe from England to Romania and verges on the epic, is told through journals, diaries and letters, occasionally spiced up with newspapers, telegrams and even one ship log. This allows for multiple and constantly shifting points of view that a single, more unified narrative cannot hope to achieve. The story is hardly “rattling along at break-neck speed”, as the back cover claims, but it moves on relatively fast. Some trouble was obviously taken, a short prefatory note tells us, to eliminate “all needless matters”.

And yet, good as it is, very occasionally even very good, it is never great. Not by a bloody mile!

Stoker’s style, to begin with, is lucid and readable enough, but devoid of distinction and personality – though not, alas, of that affected turgidity almost unique to Victorian writing. The best I can say about Stoker as a prose stylist is that I have read worse. I have little patience with his painstaking phonetic recreation of Yorkshire slang and other ancient languages that resemble English but vaguely. I have no patience at all with his even more scrupulous imitation of English as it is butchered by lazy foreigners. The misguided industry of the mediocre writer! Isn’t it exhausting?

The documentary approach has one grave defect: characters appear and disappear all the time, sometimes for rather long periods of time. Not that this is any great loss. The characters are colourless bunch. All of them. Stoker is not entirely unsuccessful in making them individual, but he certainly fails to make them interesting.

We have one Jonathan Harker to begin with, a “full-blown solicitor” mind you, whose narrative is remarkably verbose for a journal “kept in shorthand”. When it was over for a while, after the first fifty pages, I mentally told Mr Harker: “Jump off that cliff and shut up!” Now here is a major spoiler for you. He didn’t jump, unfortunately. He returned later to haunt the narrative with his spineless presence.

Dr Seward is sort of psychiatrist but hardly a character at all. His journal is quoted a great deal, yet we learn next to nothing about him except that he is noble and stupid. When he gives himself to reflection, he is apt to ask idiotic questions like “Is it possible that love is all subjective, or all objective?” Is it possible to be more muddle-headed, I wonder? But as the hard-headed scientist to be convinced by the superior lunacy of Van Helsing, Dr Seward is a useful plot device. The whole subplot with his patient (Renfield), clumsily related to the rest of the novel, could have been cut without any loss whatsoever.

Van Helsing is a Dutch fellow whose English is remarkably poor for somebody who’s been a student in London and who is remarkably ignorant of the mighty powers of garlic for a Professor of Vampirology. He swears beautifully in German, but in English he is intolerably long-winded, evasive, rhetorical, melodramatic, ponderous, patronising, prolix and ungrammatical. My mental notes to him covered the whole range from “Would you please shut up, you vain chatterbox!” to “Speak straight and to the point, you dumb son of a Dutchman!” Following these two simple pieces of advice would have made the novel a hundred pages shorter and at least twice better.

And yet Van Helsing is the only character who actually comes to life – sort of. Pity he is such a colossal bore. As you can learn in Chapter XIV, he is full of the most absurd Victorian superstitions and occultist nonsense. The man’s head is a veritable junkyard. This makes his smug observations even more hilarious. “There are always mysteries in life”, he solemnly intones. So there are. That’s why we have art, to explain the mysteries science can’t (yet or even ultimately). But Van Helsing knows nothing about art, or science for that matter: “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.” This is not science, Abraham. This is religion. A man with your name should know that.

What can I say about the women? There are exactly two of them. Neither made any impression on me. Lucy Westenra is another plot convention, a sleepwalker and a blood bank. The greatest event in her life is to have three proposals in one day. Imagine the excitement! Mina Harker (née Murray) is presumably Stoker’s best shot at that strange creature, a woman with brains and character of her own, more terrifying to the Victorians than any vampire. “You so clever woman”, Van Helsing is awed. What’s so clever about Mina? Well, she can write in shorthand. That’s it.

As for Dracula, he must be the most elusive title character after Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. He is mentioned on the very first page as Count in possession of a castle; he appears in all of his physical glory in the second chapter, sporting delicious remarks like “after all, how few days go to make up a century” and almost devouring our hapless narrator when he cuts himself shaving; and he discourses on his fabled ancestry in the third chapter: “the Szekelys – and the Dracula as their heart’s blood, their brains, and their swords – can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach.” Fascinating guy, is he?

But then he just disappears. Of course he controls the action completely, though mostly in ways all too obvious even to a vampire neophyte such as myself. He appears again only in the last hundred pages or so, and then only briefly and sporadically, just to play some hide-and-seek with the Van Helsing gang and lose even the little charm he had in the beginning. Dracula is evidently a creature of many talents. He creeps on walls like a lizard, for one thing. He is an expert baby snatcher, rat catcher, wolf tamer and bat impersonator. He can be anything you like. Except a memorable character.

With a bunch of ciphers like these, what can you do but turn to the story? This is interesting and told in an intricate way that has its own aesthetic appeal. But a book that’s great because of its story is like an opera that’s great because of its libretto. It doesn’t exist. Great fiction is made of great characters. None is to be found in Dracula. And the story, truth to tell, often slips into hysterical melodrama. Here is one spectacular (and by no means isolated) example:

We men were all in tears now. There was no resisting them, and we wept openly. She wept, too, to see that her sweeter counsels had prevailed. Her husband flung himself on his knees beside her, and putting his arms round her, hid his face in the folds of her dress. Van Helsing beckoned to us and we stole out of the room, leaving the two loving hearts alone with their God.

Can you read something like that without laughing out loud? I can’t. If you can, you’re well equipped to read Dracula without laughing yourself to death.

Well, what about some thought-provoking reflections by way of compensation? No dice, either. Stoker deals with serious issues like madness, superstition, sensuality, fear, horror, hypocrisy and depravity – all combustible stuff. Now and then, he does give the impression of being on the trail of something profound. But in the end he merely scratches the surface, if that. “He is a nimble skater” (Maugham said of Emerson) “who cuts elegant and complicated figures on a surface of frozen platitudes.” Great writers break the ice; the greatest dive in the icy waters below. I kept waiting and hoping that Stoker would finally come up with something truly subversive that would shake the foundations of Victorian ignorance, smugness and misogyny. But he never did.

Horror, in my opinion, can do two things for you. On a lower level, it can scare the life out of you, but from the safe distance of the page or the screen. It’s nice to be scared safely, isn’t it? On a rather higher level, it can provide some insight into the darkest and most depressing corners of human nature. For my part, Dracula, even more than Frankenstein, is a failure in both departments. When it was supposed to scare me, it made me smile. When it was supposed to move me, it made me laugh. When it was supposed to make me think, it made me fall asleep.

In the end, Dracula is not unlike the Bible. It has spawned such enormous wealth of spin-offs and superstitions that you’re surprised, or at any rate I was, how little substance is contained in the original. The amount of scholarship lavished on this novel is staggering: even a facsimile edition of Stoker’s notes has been published! I really don’t see why we should make so much ado about next to nothing. It’s a cute Victorian melodrama. That’s all it is.

Notes on the Edition

The Notes are many but mostly dispensable. Most of them are about Stoker’s apparently extensive research. He read a good deal and was anxious to get right local colour and superstitions, be it Yorkshire or Wallachia, and he also made use of the latest Victorian science (e.g. blood transfusion), technology (e.g. Kodak, phonograph) and especially pseudoscience (e.g. phrenology, telepathy, spiritualism and lots of backward ideas about psychology, criminology, medicine and what not). The Victorians were a truly unique mixture of progressive thinking and fantastic ignorance. (Then again, are we doing that much better today?) Stoker also stoked his novel with some fascinating literary allusions (e.g. Shakespeare, Byron, Thomas Hood) and plenty of cryptic contemporary touches (e.g. Jamrach’s exotic animals, the green paper of Westminster Gazette, the ABC cafes, etc.).

It is really nice to read something about all these things, but, needless to say, it doesn’t make for a better novel. Non-fiction is sometimes improved by notes. Fiction never is.

The Introduction is a scholarly essay of 25 pages and 50 footnotes. I have read it as an epilogue and I have found it a charming concoction of fanciful theories about the novel. It is to Mr Luckhurst’s credit that he doesn’t seem to endorse the wild ideas of his colleagues that Dracula is, say, an allegory for the Irish question or the dangerous contamination of the pure Anglo-Saxon blood with undesirable aliens from the colonies. He seems more sympathetic to those (and there are plenty of them, to be sure) who have tried to convince sceptics like myself that the novel does, indeed, challenge the Victorian stereotypes of gender and sexuality. For all of their passion, I still don’t find them any more convincing than the allegorists.

I certainly cannot agree with the editor that Dracula “is still a rattling good read retaining a genuine power to unsettle and unnerve.” Not even close in my case! But Mr Luckhurst does make a good case that the novel resulted, not from Stoker’s personal genius (such as it was), but rather from the peculiar zeitgeist of the late Victorian period. Science and technology were beginning to transform society with alarming speed. Old superstitions were discarded almost daily: sometimes for new ones that later proved equally absurd. I can see all this, but I wish Stoker had done a lot better job with it. Yet, even if he had, I still wouldn’t bother with him. The Victorian period is massively documented in fiction and non-fiction. It has been studied exhaustively from every conceivable angle. Why bother with a lurid fantasy melodrama?

Some would say that the novel’s vast influence and enduring popularity prove that Stoker did achieve something more than a mere late Victorian time capsule. But I would say that influence is no guarantee of intrinsic value. The Bible is by the far the most influential book in history. That doesn’t make it less preposterous and poorly written than in fact it is. I would also say that popularity, however strong and apparently everlasting, is mostly based on hype and herd mentality. These are no guarantee of intrinsic value, either.

The chronologies are fascinating curiosities. Vampire enthusiasts would probably find them superfluous, but thanks to my ignorance of the subject I found both informative and even enlightening. The Introduction contains some additional information about vampire literature and Stoker’s life, but the chronologies distil and deliver the essence quite nicely.

The name “Dracula” has entered so firmly the popular consciousness that one might suppose Stoker’s novel all but started the vampire vogue. This is not the case at all. Mr Luckhurst traces the history of vampire literature back to 1702 and Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656–1708), French botanist and traveller, who recorded some vampire superstitions in Southern Europe, especially Greece, in his Voyage to the Levant. This is inaccurate on several points. Tournefort returned from his journey to the Levant in 1702, but his Relation d’un voyage au Levant was published only posthumously in 1717. It was translated into English on the next year as A Voyage into the Levant. I have noticed those slips by chance. I hope Mr Luckhurst is more accurate about matters I’m less familiar with.

For there is plenty of charming stuff in his “Timeline”. The word “vampyre” entered the English language, according to Mr Luckhurst, in 1732 via the London Journal and some discussions of vampire superstitions in Hungary. Important collections of such lore were soon published, most notably Augustin Calmet’s resoundingly titled Treatise on Apparitions of Angels, Demons and Spirits and on the Revenants and Vampires of Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (1746). This was translated into English in 1850 under the very dull title The Phantom World. Sabine Baring-Gould’s The Book of Were-Wolves (1865) was one of Stoker’s major sources.

Speaking of fiction (at least intentional fiction), the Germans were there first with poems like by Bürger’s “Lenore” (1773) and Goethe’s “Die Braut von Korinth” (1797), but the English and the French monopolised the 19th century, starting with Southey’s Thalaba the Destroyer (1801). Polidori’s “The Vampyre” (1819) introduced Lord Ruthven and the “aristocratic vampire lord into fiction”, Baudelaire’s “Metamorphoses of the Vampire” (1857) was a “decadent poem, where a voluptuous prostitute becomes a predatory undead creature”, Sheridan Le Fanu’s “Carmilla” (1872) used one “female aristocratic vampire from Styria, on the southern edge of the Austrian empire”, apparently a key influence on Stoker. By the 1890s, vampire stories were common indeed: Nisbet, Bierce, Conan Doyle; even a vampire film in the first year (1896) of movie history. Bram Stoker simply followed the trend.

Some inclusions are questionable, however. Mr Luckhurst is right that Byron’s “The Giaour” (1812) is “briefly using notion of ‘curse’ of the vampire” (barely mentioned really), but calling the short prose sketch “A Fragment” (1819) “unfinished vampire tale” is rather misleading. Maupassant’s “The Horla” is one of the most terrifying stories ever written, but it’s hardly a vampire story. The editor all but admits that in his vague description: “psychic vampire or psychotic delusion?” I doubt George du Maurier’s Trilby can pass for “vampire literature”, either, and I’m pretty sure there isn’t anything vampirish in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. Mr Luckhurst apparently means every story with supernatural elements. But that’s a whole different, and much longer, story.

Some omissions are even more notable. It is strange that Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Olalla” (1885) is not mentioned. Vampirism is not really central to its plot, but it does appear in the form of a ghastly biting scene. Robert Mighall has even speculated that Stevenson’s tale may have inspired certain scenes in Stoker’s novel.

I should like to see a bibliography of the vampire literature after Dracula, but for obvious reasons that is not provided in this edition. I suppose it is several times longer than the novel.

The life of Bram Stoker is not especially interesting, but his chronology does contain some notable moments. He was born in Dublin and grew up in a society that included Oscar Wilde’s parents and the Gothic writer Sheridan Le Fanu. He was madly in love with Henry Irving for most of his life. He first saw him on the stage at the age of 20, worked for him as a theatre manager for almost 30 years, suffered a stroke soon after his death in 1905, but nevertheless published a two-volume hagiography on the next year. Stoker died in 1912, aged 64, in relative poverty. Florence, his wife, lived long enough to sue Nosferatu (1922) for breach of copyright and be paid for the famous 1931 movie with Bela Lugosi.

While not really a professional writer, Stoker published a good deal during his life. He started with dramatic criticism in 1871 but quickly switched to fiction; his first “Gothic story” appeared in 1875. Mr Luckhurst also notes one short story collection and no fewer than 11 novels published between 1882 and 1911, not counting Dracula and one posthumous collection (1914) from which comes “Dracula’s Guest” reprinted in this edition. He also mentions Famous Impostors (1910), but forgets to tells us this is a non-fiction work by the same author.

Nothing of all this, not even Dracula, brought Stoker any fame or much money. He probably felt overshadowed by his brothers. Two of them distinguished themselves: one was knighted for his services to medicine (1885), another served as a doctor in Bulgaria during the Russo-Turkish War and even published an account of his adventures (1878; he supported the Turkish side, interestingly). I suppose those brothers were considered, at the time, better equipped to survive the harsh test of time. But who remembers George and Thornley Stoker today? For that matter, nobody remembers Abraham Stoker, either. But Bram Stoker is a household name, or at least Dracula is. I don’t really know why.

Will Stephenie Meyer be a household name a hundred years from now? Not bloody unlikely.

P.S. I didn’t read “Dracula’s Guest”. I’ve had enough of this nonsense for the time being. ( )
1 vote Waldstein | Jun 1, 2019 |
Une adaptation du célèbre roman pour les plus jeunes, sous forme de texte et d'échanges épistolaires. Les illustrations sont jolies. Une introduction sympa au mythe pour les enfants. ( )
  Sept | May 21, 2019 |
I found the book easily digestible for an older book. The format felt quite modern, being a combination of letters and journal entries from various narrators. The descriptions and emotions were lush and enveloping. The entries written from VanHelsing’s point of view were the only ones I had difficulty getting through- the language choices are meant to portray a highly intelligent person for whom English is not native, but for me it wound up being repetitive and harder to relate to. Also, the portrayal of women was hard to swallow at times. Baring in mind that it was another time, and that it might even hold a hint of satire against chauvinism, it was still at times irking. Overall, glad I finally read this classic and would definitely recommend! ( )
  pdill8 | Mar 12, 2019 |
Showing 1-5 of 466 (next | show all)

» Add other authors (222 possible)

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
Stoker, BramAuthorprimary authorall editionsconfirmed
Adams, SusanNarratorsecondary authorall editionsconfirmed
Spencer, AlexanderNarratorsecondary authorall editionsconfirmed
Adams, SusanNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Allen, BrookeIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Ó Cuirrín, SeánTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Banville, JohnIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Bickford-Smith, CoralieCover artistsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Bing, JonAfterwordsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Carling, BjørnTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Cloonan, BeckyIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Corbett, ClareNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Duerden, SusanNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Ellmann, MaudEditorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Foley, JohnNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Frayling, ChristopherPrefacesecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Glassman, PeterAfterwordsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Gorey, EdwardIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Hildebrandt, GregIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Hindle, MauriceEditorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Horovitch, DavidNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Kloska, JosephNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Laine, JarkkoTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Lee, JaeIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Luckhurst, RogerEditorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Moser, BarryIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Myers, Walter DeanIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Oliver, Francisco TorresTranslatorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Parker, JamieNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Pettitt, AlisonNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Rogers, DavidEditorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Rorer, AbigailIllustratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Spencer, AlexanderNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Stade, GeorgeIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Straub, PeterIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Thorpe, DavidNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Valente, JosephIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Vietor, MarcNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Whitfield, RobertNarratorsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed
Wolf, LeonardIntroductionsecondary authorsome editionsconfirmed

Is contained in

Is retold in

Has the (non-series) sequel

Has the adaptation

Is abridged in

Is expanded in


Has as a student's study guide

You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
How these papers have been placed in sequence will be made manifest in the reading of them. All needless matters have been eliminated, so that a history almost at variance with the possibilities of latter-day belief may stand forth as simple fact. There is throughout no statement of past things wherein memory may err, for all the records chosen are exactly contemporary, given from the standpoints and within the range of knowledge of those who made them.
To my dear friend Hommy-Beg
First words
3 May. Bistritz.—Left Munich at 8:35 P.M., on 1st May, arriving at Vienna early next morning; should have arrived at 6:46, but train was an hour late.
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, but the strange things, the extraordinary things, the things that make one doubt if they be mad or sane.
No man knows till he has suffered from the night how sweet and dear to his heart and eye the morning can be.
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.
I heard once of an American who so defined faith: ‘that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue.
Denin die Todtem reiten schnell. For the dead travel fast.
Last words
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)
Disambiguation notice
This is the main work for Dracula. It should not be combined with any adaptation, children's version, abridgment, etc. If this is your book but you have an abridged or adapted version, please update your title and/or ISBN, so that your copy can be combined with the correct abridgment or adaptation.

6305078181 is for the 1979 movie directed by John Badham.

Unabridged audiobook
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS
Book description
A rich selection of background and source materials is provided in three areas: Contexts includes probable inspirations for Dracula in the earlier works of James Malcolm Rymer and Emily Gerard. Also included are a discussion of Stoker's working notes for the novel and "Dracula's Guest," the original opening chapter to Dracula. Reviews and Reactions reprints five early reviews of the novel. "Dramatic and Film Variations" focuses on theater and film adaptations of Dracula, two indications of the novel's unwavering appeal. David J. Skal, Gregory A. Waller, and Nina Auerbach offer their varied perspectives. Checklists of both dramatic and film adaptations are included.

Criticism collects seven theoretical interpretations of Dracula by Phyllis A. Roth, Carol A. Senf, Franco Moretti, Christopher Craft, Bram Dijsktra, Stephen D. Arata, and Talia Schaffer.
Haiku summary
Estate agent gets
It in the neck. Should avoid
Dinner at the Count's.
Should be fun. No, don't bother
to bring any wine.

Dracula could teach
Edward not to sparkle so.
He hates those books too.

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0743477367, Mass Market Paperback)

A true masterwork of storytelling, Dracula has transcended generation, language, and culture to become one of the most popular novels ever written. It is a quintessential tale of suspense and horror, boasting one of the most terrifying characters ever born in literature: Count Dracula, a tragic, night-dwelling specter who feeds upon the blood of the living, and whose diabolical passions prey upon the innocent, the helpless, and the beautiful. But Dracula also stands as a bleak allegorical saga of an eternally cursed being whose nocturnal atrocities reflect the dark underside of the supremely moralistic age in which it was originally written -- and the corrupt desires that continue to plague the modern human condition.

Pocket Books Enriched Classics present the great works of world literature enhanced for the contemporary reader. This edition of Dracula was prepared by Joseph Valente, Professor of English at the University of Illinois and the author of Dracula's Crypt: Bram Stoker, Irishness, and the Question of Blood, who provides insight into the racial connotations of this enduring masterpiece.

(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:13:27 -0400)

(see all 12 descriptions)

An evil count in Transylvania leads an army of human vampires that prey on people.

(summary from another edition)

» see all 96 descriptions

Legacy Library: Bram Stoker

Bram Stoker has a Legacy Library. Legacy libraries are the personal libraries of famous readers, entered by LibraryThing members from the Legacy Libraries group.

See Bram Stoker's legacy profile.

See Bram Stoker's author page.

Quick Links

Popular covers


Average: (3.96)
0.5 4
1 57
1.5 17
2 190
2.5 70
3 940
3.5 333
4 1861
4.5 234
5 1485

Penguin Australia

8 editions of this book were published by Penguin Australia.

Editions: 014143984X, 0141024976, 0451530667, 0141325666, 0141045221, 0451228685, 0143106163, 0141199334

Urban Romantics

2 editions of this book were published by Urban Romantics.

Editions: 1907832521, 1907832653

Tantor Media

An edition of this book was published by Tantor Media.

» Publisher information page

Recorded Books

An edition of this book was published by Recorded Books.

» Publisher information page


About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 136,334,482 books! | Top bar: Always visible