Bram Stoker (1847–1912)

Astoundingly, I'd never read Dracula before now. I don't think I've even experienced any adaptations all the way through. I knew some things, but didn't even realize that the majority of the novel takes place in England-- I always figured it was all Transylvanian castles.

Anyway, it's great. Dracula is a great villain, especially in the beginning when he's all suave. The characters claim that Dracula acts like an irrational animal, but his plan is actually founded on very rational principles. show more Even though Dracula isn't really science fiction, it is good speculative fiction in the sense that it starts from the premise of What if vampires were real and had x properties? and then follows through on that with complete rigor. Of course they were undertake this exact plan.

The book is also scarier than any story that depends on you not knowing what a vampire is has any right to be. For every scene where you can't help being amused that a character is astounded Dracula doesn't have a reflection, there's a whole sequence like the crew of the cargo ship being slowly picked off by a hungry Dracula. The The Woman in White-esque epistolary format really helps in this regard, even if it seems a little contrived that Jonathan Harker has so many opportunities to record his thoughts while fleeing for his life. Also great: the whole Transylvanian segment, the use of the phonograph and typewriter, the fact that Mina Harker is the smartest character in the book, and creepy old Renfield. Given how good this reads now, it must have been fantastic to an audience unfamiliar with vampires. show less

I started this novel with some curiosity but not much enthusiasm, so I was ready to nitpick. Our hero is sitting down to tea with Dracula himself and doesn't have a clue, despite observing one oddity about his host after another. I wanted to shake him and yell, "it's the world's nastiest vampire, you idiot! Get the blinders off!" Then, revelation: he doesn't recognize Dracula because for him, there's no such person. This is Dracula being invented, right here in this book.

I ought to have show more known the reason Dracula is a household name is first and foremost because the original novel is so good. All of it is written as letters and diary entries, news clippings, etc. all meshing wonderfully. Nor is it nearly so straightforward a plot as I expected. Who is Renfield, the asylum inmate, and what's his role in the story? Why should I care that some completely incidental lady has three suitors who all propose to her? Ah - wait and see!

When I read Frankenstein I felt sympathy for the poor monster. Dracula is not a character to inspire pathos. He does such a good snarling face that you'll probably live with the nightmare vision for the rest of your life. He has more freaky powers at his disposal than I have space to list in this review. And he is not above taunting you after costing you the love of your life.

I care nothing for Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing, but I love the Van Helsing of this novel. I love his careful building up to revealing what he knows, leading to the big pronouncement: vampires exist! How many characters in how many novels could take lessons from this guy? He could teach "How to convince people to believe in the supernatural without instead convincing them you're insane". It does take him a long time to set up his case, but seeing how he pulls it all together is what makes it great. Afterwards he's an equally steady hand at keeping others' minds on an even keel when madness comes knocking at the door.

The finale fell a bit flat, anticlimactic by today's standards, but this novel is about the journey far more than its conclusion. I received a lot more journey than I'd bargained for. show less

Reread on audio. The best part is the first section, when Jonathan Harker is in Dracula's castle. The horror imagery is fantastic: Dracula climbing head-first down the sheer side of his castle; the three women gathered around the sack that contains a child; the wolves howling. Stoker maybe should have stopped here, because after Dracula moves to London, the novel really bogs down. The prose acquires a decidedly purplish tint, and Van Helsing is oftentimes nothing less than ridiculous. The show more genteel Victorian sexism starts to grate, and really, it is just too long to wait before the final hunt, which feels a little anticlimactic after all the build-up.

I'm still rating this 5* because Dracula is a book that spawned a thousand imitators and really helped create modern horror. It is worthwhile going back and reading these novels that spawned the tropes, even with their now-apparent flaws.

I listened to an ensemble cast version with Tim Curry as Van Helsing, which was nicely done. Curry didn't have a big enough part. He was the only reader who didn't make Van Helsing's accent sound ridiculous. show less

I just finished Frankenstein before this, which I loved, and I can't help but comparing the two (which I'm sure has been done 1000000 times before). Both are classic gothic horror lit, both are epistolary in nature, both are crazy influential, etc.

Where Frankenstein had basically none of the "monster tropes" that exist in popular culture (green monster, mad scientist in a castle, mob with pitchforks, "It's alive" scene, etc) I find Dracula to be the opposite. Literally every single vampire show more trope is in this book: mirrors, garlic, crucifixes, preying on young attractive women, running water, bats, can't enter unless invited, sleep in coffins, etc.

Frankenstein was incredible, with its masterful narration, beautiful, feminine prose, examination of psychological degradation and anguish, and the insightful philosophy. Dracula feels a bit pulpier? More adventure, plot at the forefront, a bit more of a mystery to work out? More suspense, more "horror". Definitely more what I was looking for with gothic horror, despite absolutely falling in love with Frankenstein (I think it's a masterpiece).

So I guess my takeaways are that Frankenstein is a masterpiece in literature, but Dracula strikes me as a better horror book, albeit maybe a more shallow experience. Still a fantastic book though. It starts off amazingly, and slows down in the middle a bit, however while there's less action in the middle, it gets to be more of a mystery for the reader to piece together. show less