Dracula is possibly the most notable and original concept of a vampire novel and the most faithful to the mythological elements of common vampirsm. Dracula in my opinion can not be beaten by any vampire novel of our time, Twilight fans will strongly disagree, but I fail miserably how such things can be argued as Stephenie Meyer was - whether she is aware or not - heavily inspired by Bram Stoker's spectacular Dracula.
I've read several vampire novels, none of which are as original and creative as Dracula. Stoker was not inspired by any other vampire novels nor was he influenced by any films productions of our movie-saturated generation...simply because he could not, such things were unavailable, non-existent...Bram Stoker is simply THE creator of vampire literature!!

In recent times vampire fiction has become dramatically different from what it was only one-hundred years previously. Vampires sparkle in sunlight. Some are invulnerable to sunlight. They do not require to feed upon humans. They are great enemies of (were)wolves. In Dracula or similar fiction from around the same time, you'll find none of that. No. It's back to the drawing board, good old traditional vampires. Disinetergration at the sight of the sun. Staking at heart. Decapitation. Hunger for the blood of humans. True intelligent writing!!

I loved this book, it took me about five days to read just two-hundred pages, I was really annoyed at this because I like to finished books as quickly as possible. In the first two-hundred pages which felt unbearable draggy to me, there were several different protagonists all telling their stories via diary entries. Jonathan Harker as the prisoner of Count Dracula, Mina Harker and Lucy Westernra's entries and a meeting with Dracula. Also, the famous Van Helsing (who is an original character of Stoker) becomes a recurring character. All of these parts are good, but they felt like different stories and unrelated. However, once I had reached page two-hundred, things began to come clear to me.
The ending and eventual destruction of Dracula and all of his, how do I say? Familars? was a little disappointing.

'salem's Lot. As you may or not be aware, I read Stephen King's 'salem's Lot and King revealed in his introduction that his novel was inspiured by Bram Stoker's Dracula. I really loved 'salem's Lot and when Stephen King mentioned in his Afterword that he had read Dracula at the age of nine I was like :O OMFGGGG I'M FIFTEEN!!! Haha, yeah, I was impressed no wonder King is such a great writer. I know what I said about Dracula was the original vampire novel but I liked Stephen King's 'salem's Lot better than Dracula and respectfully King did stick very religiously to the vampire tradition: crosses, stakes, sunlight, blood and Barlow as the Dracula grand vampire figure. Yes I loved Dracula and would give it five but it was a little confusing. ( )

The original vampire novel. Since vampires have been reinvented, this one might seem a bit dated. Vampires that feed on human blood? Vampires that plot and scheme to control others and preserve their ancient lives, no matter what the cost? Humans who hunt down evil vampires because they are evil? How 19th century!
This is still the best vampire novel, as long as you are willing to go back to the original vampire concept. ( )

Generally I enjoyed [Dracula]. It had a sort of action adventure quality while maintaining the dark and moody tone. Each characters letters and journals were usually distinct, although at times some of the denser material read like standard prose. I could not bring myself to like Mina. I found her insufferable and boring most of the time and a ‘product of her time’ at the best. ( )

I don't know enough about literary history to talk about the book in context of when it was written and what it really means, so instead I will say that I liked the themes and progression of the story. Stoker begins by creating a convincingly menacing atmosphere for Harker as he slowly realizes that he is not Dracula's guest but actually his captive, while at the same time showing us letters from Mina's quiet life at home. I enjoyed how the story went from ominous ship docking at the harbor with no crew to people disappearing to Mina's corruption and release, and really enjoyed the theme of faith as power. I thought the story ended a bit abruptly, however. Dracula is slain within view of his castle in less than a page.

I read this in real time in the form of a blog (http://dracula-feed.blogspot.com/), which I think gave me a better appreciation for the story's timeline. In general I think this form of delivery worked well, although during the meat of the book it felt like every day there were 8 lengthy new posts to read, which really wore me down. ( )

I've seen a lot of Dracula movies. Some were good, most were bad and a few bordered on ridiculous. The book that spawned them all wasn't any of these things, but should be respected for all of the wonderful vampires it has inspired today. Dracula was dry and took a while to get through. Was it worth it? Sure, but only to those who love the vampire genre and want to experience that started it all. ( )

Being somewhat familiar with the story of Dracula, and his historical basis, Vlad Tepes Dracul of medieval Romania, it seemed appropriate to finally read the original source material, inasmuch as it is a celebrated classic of English literature. I was not disappointed, though somewhat surprised that the majority of the action takes place in London, not the Count’s castle in Transylvania.

While I enjoyed the story and the style of writing, I must say that I was quite put off by the edition of the classic which I read. The Enriched Classics Series contains voluminous commentary and interpretation which I found at times, ridiculous. Of primary irritation, was the “commentators” insistence that all things within the book be read through the prism of England’s treatment of Ireland. Every reference in the book is footnoted, many in an attempt to argue that Transylvania is somehow a metaphor for Ireland. For example: “Harken rides a tardy train from Germany to Hungary” (footnote: There were tardy trains in Ireland as well.) I’m not making this up. “There are four ethnic races present in Romania”(footnote: There are actually more, but the author has reduced it to four in order to equate with the four in Ireland). Really? Most absurd, our literary critic argues that the name Dracula is some bastardization of two Irish words meaning “bad blood”. Gee, and all these years I thought it was a reference to Vlad the Impaler, of family Dracul. After all, the cover art displays a field of impaled corpses beneath Castle Dracul.

Preceding the book is a lengthy discourse on the meaning of blood in Dracula, and how, over the years, literary analysts and commentators have evolved their theories on such meaning. I don’t know, perhaps Stoker viewed blood as merely a bodily fluid. Maybe Stoker’s work is full of hidden meaning. Perhaps he merely wrote an entertaining Gothic horror novel. In either case, it seems silly to presume the former simply because there were late trains in both Ireland and Transylvania.

I suspect that some readers may be put off by the style of the writing, inasmuch as it was written in the late 19th century. There are stretches in the novel (primarily in the absence of The Count) where the going gets a little slow, and the Victorian prose becomes a little tedious, but by and large, it is an immensely entertaining read. ( )

I think the first 50 pages or so of this novel are some of the best ever written. Harker's naive excitement about his first big assignment quickly turns to horror. The rest of the story continues the spooky vibe, which I think is actually enhanced by the detachment introduced by the storytelling convention of revealing events through the journals and letters of the main characters. ( )

Twisted. A wonderful classic. ( )

If you know me at all, you know I love me some vampire tales. My first was Twilight. I got the books for my 22nd birthday and read them all in a week. I borrowed The Historian, from a co-worker and loved it so much I went out and bought it to save for another Halloween!

Yes, I love Halloween. I’m the nerd who watches all the scary movies on AMC’s Monsterfestand the ones I can’t watch, I DVR and stay up super late to watch them. I don’t sleep the whole month of October without a nightmare, but I deal.

I started the A to Z Challenge earlier this month. Since I blog about all the books I read, I knew which ones I’ve read this year. I had all but 7 done. D and I were books I didn’t have. I automatically knew Dracula and Interview with the Vampire were my choices.

You know what you are getting into when you start this book. Obviously it’s about a vampire so that doesn’t surprise you. The layout of the book reminded me a lot of The Historian. A lot of it is in letters too. I really like that because you get to see everyone’s point of view.

When it came to the writing of the book, there were some parts that I flew through, there were others that drug on for weeks. This book took me two weeks to conquer. I read when I get home from work and wind down for bed and read on the weekends whenever I have a moment to sit down. I’d like to say the wedding has my mind out of whack, but I honestly think some of the book just didn’t appeal to me. I loved the first hundred few pages then lost interest. It came and went from there.

The book was very descriptive which always makes for a good read. I love to be able to close my eyes and imagine the characters and the scenes. It always got me major kudos with my Teaser Tuesdays (1 and 2).

The characters in this book remind me of chivalry. Michael (my fiance) is very chivalrous, but it seems to be dwindling away over the years. These 5 men put a lady before all of them and fight to the death for her.

I must admit while all these men won my heart, Mina is my favorite character. She’s a strong, very intelligent woman. And she’s a fighter. She never gives up and she helps the men from start to finish. Without her, the ending of this book would probably have been very different.

At times during the book, I was VERY confused. Like when Dr. Seward kept talking of his patient, when the first ship came when Lucy and Mina were in town and all of the suitors for Lucy. They all made sense in time, but when I first read them, I remember thinking “How can this possibly fit into this book?”

It’s taken me a couple of days to think about this review. I admire the book for its history and for all of the vampire lore that was inspired by this book. I love the creativity and the story, but I didn’t love all of the writing. It was a tough read and there were many parts I had to read and re-read.

I give Dracula 3 bookmarks. ( )

After reading this, I realize that I've never seen a Dracula movie in my life. I dimly recall seeing the play in high school - my sister played Mina - but the plot of that escapes me. I was surprised at how little of the book takes place at Dracula's castle. I also was a touch confused by the plethora of vampiric restrictions: sunlight is evidently a hindrance only some of the time, one becomes a vampire by drinking a vampire's blood or sometimes just by being killed by a vampire, a vampire needs to rest in sanctified soil but cannot touch anything blessed, a vampire can turn into a bat and a dog and mist and who knows what else... I'm just glad subsequent vampire stories kept it simple: no sunlight, no Christian stuff, no stakes through the heart or decapitation.

Anyway, all griping aside, I really enjoyed this book. The plot moves well. Often books over 100 years old are written in a difficult dialect, but this was easy, to the point where I was even able to hear Van Helsing's thick accent in my head. Mina's portrayal as a strong, intelligent woman was refreshing as well. The ending was quite abrupt, even jarring, but the story did not feel at all unfinished. ( )

The author uses an interesting approach to telling his story. His media is a series of journal, diarie, and news paper entries from the main characters as they persue the monster, Dracula. The tale moves forward at an excellent pace. It drags very little throughout. The author also uses very good immagination in his story telling--enough at least to make the story believable. ( )

A classic that felt, as least to me, surprisingly modern. Beautifully accented by Jae Lee's illustrations, I've sold this a few times to people first brought to the vampire genre by _Twilight_ and who are interested in reading more. ( )

Nothing happens! (This from a fan of Buffy and Angel). Suspense, mystery, drama, atmosphere--I must have missed them. ( )

Whether you have read the book or not, no doubt you know the basics of this classic 1897 novel. Although it wasn't the first Gothic or the first vampire literature, it set the stage for every vampire story that followed it. You’ll already know what Dracula looks like, where he lives, what he is about, his strengths and his weaknesses. What you may not know – as I did not – is:

1. Although we do visit Castle Dracula in Transylvania, the bulk of the story takes place in England, where our villain pursues innocent women, and is pursued by a noble band of strapping heroes that include The Imprisoned Solicitor, The Lordly Aristocrat, The Charming American, the Thoughtful Psychologist and The Elderly Dutch Doctor, whose wisdom guides them all. Not only them, but:

2. A wonderful, strong woman – the most inspiring I’ve met in 19th century literature – takes her place among them. The wife of The Imprisoned Solicitor, Mina is a teacher and aspiring journalist who carefully records her experiences and impressions, is fascinated by technology, travels on her own, takes charge of difficult situations, reads feminist literature, makes decisions so brilliant the men often follow her lead – and carries a gun when she must! At the same time, she demonstrates the sensitivity and tenderness, the vulnerability, and the absolute devotion to Home and God that the age (and the Count) demanded of its women. She’s got it all.

3. The tale is told entirely through fictional “primary sources” -- diaries, medical records, telegrams, newspaper articles and letters. Thus, almost every detail is told in the first person, mostly by the primary characters, and each voice is wonderfully true to type, including the “foreign” syntax of the Dutchman’s speech and the irrepressible “slang” of the American.

The book is long and sometimes a bit drawn out, when we are so anxious for resolution, but it is a surprisingly modern classic on many levels, with everything a thrilling adventure requires. Those who read a lot of grisly contemporary horror literature may find it tame, but on a dark autumn evening, tucked into a warm chair by a flickering fire, I found it just perfect. ( )

Dracula by Bram Stoker.

my thoughts and comments:

The Count is definitely a book of another time, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. I expected it to be creepier, but as I was yet a teenager the last time I read it, it most likely affected me very differently. I enjoyed the characters in the story. I found it a little long winded at times, but books of that era pretty much are so I am not complaining, just commenting. I would have liked to see more little underlying stories but I thought it quite good and will give it another read in a few more years with a newer different copy. ( )

I recently re-read Dracula and I have to say, it can still make my heart race even though I know what’s going to happen on the next page.

The novel is composed of journal entries from several characters: Jonathan Harker, Lucy Westerna, Mina Murray, Dr. John Seward, Quincey Morris, Arthur Holwood, and Professor Van Helsing.  Each entry brings a new voice and perspective to the story making it incredibly rich and, in many ways, even scarier because you know these individuals are expressing their true fears since the writing is done in private journals. 

The story begins with Jonathan Harker, an English lawyer, on a trip to the Carpathian Mountains to conduct business for a Count Dracula.  He describes his odd journey and the strange responses of the people when they learn where he is going.  He also includes his description of the Count which gives the reader a clear look at Dracula.

Mina, Jonathan’s fiancée, is visiting her friend Lucy and writing happily to her Jonathan.  The entries are full of happiness and hope until Lucy falls gravely ill and the mood becomes tragically sad and somewhat disturbing as Lucy’s behavior and cause is explained.

Dr. Seward, a former suitor of Lucy’s, is at a loss to help her and calls on an old friend.  Professor Van Helsing arrives and sensing the problem begins a fruitless effort to save her.  When Lucy succumbs, Van Helsing knows what must be done but to protect the decency of the lady and emotions of family and friends, he mentions the next step, stake through the heart and beheading, only to Seward.  Seward, nursing his loss of Lucy in several ways, lashes out.  Finally, when neighbors begin to report children missing, Seward agrees to help Van Helsing along with Quincey, an American in love with Lucy as well, and her forlorn fiancé Arthur who feels it is his duty to help Lucy finally rest in peace.  The small band sets out to kill Lucy --- again.

Mina at this time is nursing Jonathan back to health after he fell ill during his trip to Transylvania.  She finds and reads his diary against his wishes, in the hope of understanding what is ailing him.  She’s astounded by what she finds but is still determined to help not only Jonathan, but the now assembled group of vampire hunters, remove the scourge from the earth.

As the final battle becomes evident, the journal entries become more morose, creepy, and scary which is what makes this book so fascinating.  You feel as if you’re getting a peek into the characters’ minds.  You feel their terror and frustrations, and are entranced by the minutiae of their planning for the fight with what they consider to be the ultimate evil.

If you’re looking for something to read this October, the original still delivers. ( )

Introducing one of English literature’s most infamous characters, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a feast of a novel that delights both those with a taste for horror, and those without. While modern readers will recognize much of the Count that they have come to know through popular culture, the original novel holds much more than suave aristocrats and women in negligees.

The epistolary form of the novel – which comes into vogue in the 18th-century – allows Stoker to create a sense of suspense and complexity as he navigates several different narratives that prove essential to the successful relation of his vampire story. Although modern films have simplified the narrative to fit their own format, Dracula would not be the novel it is without the myriad of voices that Stoker utilizes to establish his story, and would certainly lose much of its power and seduction if left to a singular narrator.

When reading Dracula for analysis (as oppose to personal pleasure) it is important to remember that Stoker's work is actually a fairly late addition to the evolving body of English vampire literature. Authors such as Keats, Coleridge, Byron, Polidori, and Le Fanu all raise their voices to contribute to the emerging rendition of an ancient figure, and have their influence in Stoker's creation of his iconic Count. What Stoker does is not create the vampire myth - nor the English vampire story - but rather uses it to very 19th-century English ends.

In the wide scope of Gothic monsters, the vampire is one of the more recent members. While witches haunt medieval manuscripts and werewolves stalk Renaissance dramas, the vampire does not appear in English literature until relatively late.* Stoker himself is responsible for many characteristics that have now become standard for the modern vampire figure, and contemporary authors and artists owe much to Stoker’s conception. What I find most interesting, however, is how Stoker himself manipulates the standards of his time to give life to the character that has so permeated public consciousness. Dracula moves beyond the traditions of horror and Gothic and becomes a piece of social commentary and exploration that contains radical examinations of gender, sexuality, and reproduction. Under the guise of Gothic, Stoker is allowed the freedom to challenge traditional roles established by Victorian society, and pushes against traditional institutions under the cloak of "horror".

Dracula has earned its place in the English canon, and remains an important and influential work of literature that is sure to delight readers for centuries to come.

*According to Montague Summers, demonic creatures that possess certain characteristics attributed to vampires by modern audiences can in fact be found in manuscripts as early as the 14th century, but these distinctions and identifications are all made several centuries after their original composition.

It's very rare that I have a book that I absolutely adore for reasons that I can't pinpoint, but Dracula is the book.

From the moment I picked it up, the journal/memorandum/letter style of the writing drew me in. Seeing a more personal look into the characters thoughts attached me to the characters instantly. Stoker even explained where they were writing their journals (oftentimes the train from place to place) making it a tad more believable.

The storyline, of which I was vaguely familiar, was captivating. Dracula, unlike some modern Vampiric Legends, reigns as the epitome of Vampirism. The twists and turns he created had me gasping or going, "Ah! You sneaky brat!"

The characters - Mina Murray, Lucy Wenestra, Dr. John Seward, Professor Van Helsing, Arthur, Quincey and Jonathan Harker - all were distinct, human and realistic, if not a bit dramatic. But in this case, the drama adds to the novel in the best of all possible ways.

If you liked the movies, any of the numerous adaptations, make sure you read the original source! It is definitely worth your time. ( )

This book is an interesting juxtaposition of fantastical elements and science, evil and righteousness, modern and historic. As a forerunner to the vampire genre, Dracula in this story is probably less enthralling. He seems to me mostly creepy and evil with very little that is appealing. Although he captures such innocents as Lucy and Mina, Mr. Stoker never alludes to any pleasure in that capture for the women - only horror at the evil that has overtaken them. Much of the horror of the book is in the suspense. I imagine that for anyone who hadn't heard of vampires, there would also be suspense in trying to figure out what was going on, though for a modern reader, the main characters seem rather slow to figure it out. ( )

Every night, as I settled in with this classic horror tale, I felt as though a dark, heavy drape was closing in around me, blocking out the light and isolating me. Sights and sounds took on a sinister air; shadows moved around me menacingly.

Bram Stoker cast the mold for all vampire stories to come, piecing together myths and folktales to create one of the most disturbing and creepy villains of all time. Count Dracula comes complete with the breath of decomposing flesh, sharpened teeth, red shining eyes, and hairy palms. His hypnotic command over the creatures of the world and people, together with his ability to shape shift, also make him one of the most powerful villains of all time.

Stoker also added a great deal to the mythology of victims in horror tales. The people whom Dracula chooses as his victims are riddled with self-doubt and fear. Jonathon Harker, who introduces the Count to us, is perhaps the best example. He ignores the warnings and pleadings of local villagers, trusting in his own rational mind, and flies directly into the vampire’s web. Once there, he ignores his own growing sense of doom for far too long before attempting to free himself. Harker rubs many folks the wrong way, with his constant inner debate over whether the Count is evil or whether he is just an eccentric old man; a debate that the reader can settle immediately. In defense of Harker, I wonder whether he bothers us because he epitomizes our own self-doubt and fear. Indeed, when Harker is brave, climbing down the wall of the castle, opening the vampire’s coffin, and searching the vile beings pockets for a key to freedom, we cheer him on. But when he falls back into his victim mentality, we want to cast him off. Perhaps, Harker represents the inner struggle we all face to get over ourselves.

Another character who seems to cause a good deal of head shaking is Harker’s betrothed, Mina Harker. This smart young woman often outshines the males in the hunt for Dracula, culling together overlooked clues and evidence. Later in the story, some argue that she is abandoned as just so much feminine dead weight, ignored as too fragile to help, requiring protection rather inclusion. For me, the story carried a heavy moral in the group’s choice to exclude Mina. At the very moment when Van Helsing chooses to cut Mina off, Dracula gains the upper hand. When Mina is again made part of the circle, the group is able to locate and gain ground on the vampire. Stoker seemed to be making a pretty clear point to me that the gifts Mina offered in the search for Dracula were vital to success. And he also seemed to be reiterating that their endeavors were only hindered by separating their once singular mind.

The execution of the Count in the final pages seems to herald the very death of myth itself. Throughout the entire hunt for the vampire, Van Helsing makes much of open-minded thought. But, even in his inclusion of folklore and myth, the Dutch professor relies on logic and reason to process this alternative information, eventually locating the villain through an early form of behavioral profiling. When Dracula is surrounded by men armed with Winchester rifles and then dispatched with steel knives, rather than a wooden stake, Stoker ushers in a new modern era of industry and commerce, killing forever the dark days of myth and folklore.

Stoker’s novel deserves its place hall of the classics. He single-handedly spawned an entire genre of story-telling. So many of the popular vampire tales or our day follow the paths he trail-blazed. Dracula is the standard by which all recent vampire stories should be judged. The original is the best. ( )

There is a reason why Dracula has remained such an enormous part of our literary culture, it freaking rocks! When i started reading Dracula, i had no idea how truly terrifying it was. It got to the point where I had to sleep with the lamp on on the nights I read Dracula. Count Dracula is a truly evil character. I think one of the few characters in literature who are just plain evil. There was no other side to Dracula, he was just everything that is evil. This could have made Dracula into a flat one dimensional character if it weren't for the fact that as an evil guy, NO ONE can best Dracula.
The only real problem i had with Dracula was the female characters. Mina is practially a saint, not a woman. She has no desires beyond that to be a good wife to Jonathan Harker. She is always referred to a pure and what not, which is ridiculous because every woman should have some desires. Lucy in contrast is a very sexualized character, and gets killed off.
Regardless, Dracula is a book everyone should have in their library. Read Dracula at least once in your life, you won't regret it. ( )

If we're going to thoroughly analyze this, we have to mention that, though it doesn't matter much in the end, yes, there are many flaws with Dracula. My personal pet peeve is the underdeveloped characters. First, there is no difference between the voices of the male characters - five different persons sound, feel, think, act as one and the same, to the degree that you have to keep checking whose narrative you are following. Stoker tries to differentiate his characters through superficial features such as nationality: Van Helsing speaks with what is supposedly a Dutch accent - though this is not consistently sustained throughout the whole book - and the American always speaks "laconically". That dreadful word was used so much in relation to Quincey it was getting ridiculous. "Count me in, Professor", said Quincey Morris laconically. "Me too", said Quincey Morris laconically. "What shall we do exactly?" asked Quincey Morris laconically. You can see the very beginning of a character sketch (Quincey: doesn't speak much, always ready for action; Van Helsing: the leader, has all the answers etc.) but then the author just stops, seemingly content with those very basic descriptions. He makes no effort to give depth to his characters and provide them with individual personalities. They were all "gentle, noble, true, kind, brave, manly" etc. Next, when it comes to Mina, the female protagonist, Stoker starts out well enough: he bestows on her a degree of intelligence, independence and resourcefulness unusual for the era he was living in and quite daring. (though, of course, he acknowledges this is not typical of the weaker sex: "her great brain which is trained like man's brain but is of sweet woman".) As the story progresses, however, she too ends up as a stereotype. Soon enough she assumes the typical role of the Angel - the embodiment of goodness, with no character flaws allowed in her. She represents for each and every one of the five men the Ideal Woman that they must protect at any cost: pure, honest, bashful, gentle, loving, vulnerable. The only character exempt from the boredom of being completely good or completely evil - and more interesting for that reason - was Renfield, who kept switching from barking mad, to extremely intelligent and "cured", to an evil man with a plan, to a mere victim of circumstances.

But let's forget about the characters for a second. The bad guys/good guys format is kept throughout the novel, and though it leaves no room for ambiguity, the truth is it enhances the action just fine. The greatest thing about Dracula is that, even knowing as you do what is going to happen - from countless movies and parodies - the sense of suspense is surprisingly maintained until the very end. Stoker never has to resort to gory details, which audiences supposedly "need", to make his story interesting. For many of his contemporaries - those dear Victorians - the mere fact that women were presented as lustful, cruel and sexual (when under the influence of vampires) was shocking. ("Lucy Westerna, but yet how changed. The sweetness was turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty, and the purity to voluptuous wantonness.") And the book is no less appealing to the modern public: there's a contemporary feel to Dracula which could be attributed I think to the format it employs (it is written in diary and letter form) and the often mention and use of the technological advances of the time. (phonographs, telegrams) The protagonists keep mentioning how "in this scientific era" it is very hard to believe in supernatural things - a statement the modern reader can easily identify with. The writing flows very well and, excluding some less than fascinating moments in the middle of the book (letters between Lucy and Mina) the reader's interest is maintained for the whole duration of the story. I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying this is the ultimate Gothic novel. At least not since Wuthering Heights have I read a book so exemplary of Gothic literature, with its typical blend of romance and horror elements. And while the repeated compliments, declarations of love and vows of loyalty between the six characters did get a bit tiring, the horror parts on the other hand were done to perfection. This might be because they weren't so much horrifying or scary as extremely suspenseful and exciting: the book felt a lot like a very atmospheric detective story.

The biggest compliment I think I can give the book is this: horror is possibly my least favourite genre, when it comes to both books and movies, closely followed by romance. Considering that this book combines my two least favourite genres, it's a testament to the novel's power and timelessness that I enjoyed it as I did. ( )

In a way, you know what's going to happen; this story has been part of our culture for too many years (and too many movies) not to know. On the other hand, that didn't spoil it.

I'd divide this book into three parts. The first part (until Lucy's story is done) and the last part (once the active chase for Dracula starts) I found delightfully creepy and suspenseful. It was easy to see how this spawned over a century of horror stories. It was also fun to see the antecedents of all the little details of our current vampire mania—Eric gets Sookie to drink his blood so he can track her and hear her thoughts?...ahem, been there, read that.

The middle portion of the book was a tiny bit of a slog. It was light in the adventure department and rather high in both the protagonists-must-be-stupid and the people-must-pontificate departments. Oh well, it was another era and another standard of what is enjoyable in a story.

I recommend giving it a try; the very lack of modern "polish" lets this book conjure up a nice sense of darkness and terror. ( )

As it's written in journal-entry form, I didn't find it particularly impressive. The plot was wonderful, the overall vibe was great, but the writing style left some to be desired. It didn't take away much from the book, but it seems like it's written in past tense. It's a little...strange. I liked it, regardless. 4 out of 5 excuses to never take communion. ( )

I had wanted to be a writer of horror novels at an earlier point in my life. All my horror exposure had been 20th century novels and movies. I decided to take a step back and expose myself to classic horror. Stoker's style is unique and there are some truly evil imagery in this book. I believe reading this novel in the time period it was published would have terrified me much more than reading any modern day horror novel in my own time period. I would eventually like to read more of Mr. Stoker's attempts at horror. "The Lair of the White Worm" sounds interesting.... ( )