Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Dracula (Norton Critical Editions) (edition 1996)by Bram Stoker3.5 Likte veldig godt starten, og måten den er skrevet på med journalene til alle karakterene. Plotten er spennede gjennom hele boken, men føltes ofte som om at han aldri kom til poenget, og det var mye å lese som ikke hadde noe å si. Var interessant å se hvordan kvinnesynet på den tiden kommer fram i boken, ofte lurte jeg på om det var satire. 1897, that's the year of publication. A few years after Carmilla, which I must still read. So wonderfully written this beginning vein of lore and horror (yes I still need to find the contrasts with carmilla). Such wonderful images, character development and I tellect built throughout this story. I feel fortunate to be able to read this from such a time ago, and timeless it is. A disappointment, though recommended by quite a few people. The author employs a journal technique where nearly all the characters take part. It doesn't really work and I feel that some important facts were left out early on. Anyway, the real problem with reviewing the book is that what may have appeared intriguing or novel at the time the book was released is now, in fact, part of modern folklore and assumed. It was a bit of slog for me to finally finish this. Things I did not realize about Dracula (the book) until actually reading it: 1. Van Helsing talks so funny. 2. The sections in cockney dialect are pretty much unreadable. 3. There's not enough Dracula (the character) in it for me. To be fair, I read this and listened to [b:Dracula My Love|7202372|Dracula My Love The Secret Journals of Mina Harker|Syrie James|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1273782386s/7202372.jpg|7894191] concurrently, so I suppose I was inclined to find the original version of Dracula a little slow and boring compared to the modern romance novel version. The modern romance version does make a lot of good points! For example: 1. VH gives Lucy blood from four different dudes. He's trying to save her, but modern understanding of blood types leads me to believe he probably had a hand in in killing her, right? 2. In the end, they cut off Dracula's head but they don't stake him with wood. Is he really dead? Or did he just disappear (AS WE KNOW HE CAN!)? There’s nothing like the Victorian gothic - saturated in fear of the unknown, the world on the brink of massive global change… Stoker, in the Count, gives us the embodiment of a new, terrifying (beautiful) era. A fun story. Even more fun to see how much of it has been incorporated into modern monster fiction. Dracula was not the first vampire in literature, but he is easily the most important. The Dracula in Bram Stoker’s book is not the vampire you might expect. Movies and other pop culture interpretations usually miss the mark when it comes to the novel’s central character. Even the 1992 film Bram Stoker’s Dracula is not really Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The original Dracula is not a romantic hero. He’s a monster, driven by his hunger for blood and his uncontrolled lust to take what he wants. The narrative is told through a series of diaries, journals and letters. This gives us an interesting first hand insight into all of the characters as they discover and experience the horror of Count Dracula’s actions. While we go in knowing exactly who Dracula is, the characters have to be convinced of the monster. We expect the fangs, they don’t. This book is a classic because it helped established vampire lore in the pop culture. All other vampire works built upon the foundation of Stoker's masterpiece. It's a lesson in suspense as well: We hardly spend much time with the count or his brides at all. It's his implied terror, sweeping through Europe to London that causes such concern. It is also a tale of good and evil and devout religiosity. To kill the count is to defeat the devil himself. Plenty of folks have written about this masterpiece and interpreted better than I can. All I can say is, Dracula might not be everyone's cup of tea but it is a masterpiece for a reason. If you haven't read it yet, give it a try. A mostly very enjoyable book, but it took me an age to read. Some bits felt very pedestrian, or repetitive, or just overly verbose (also Van Helsing's broken English grated fairly quickly, and there's a lot of it). I think I'd been expecting it to be a short novel, so perhaps wasn't mentally primed to give it the time it merited. But there are some great scenes and wonderfully creepy characters. Also fascinating to compare Stoker's vampire lore with that of more modern interpretations (but I'm sure it's exhaustively covered elsewhere, so I'm not going to bother). voor een zo oud boek vond ik het toch erg meeslepend geschreven en ik vond de opbouw van het verhaal ook erg leuk. Ik ergerde me een stuk minder aan de houding van de mannen dan dat ik gedaan zou hebben bij een modern boek, omdat ik vind dat vooral Mina voor die tijd erg sterk werd neergezet. Het taalgebruik is even wennen maar het past binnen die periode en als je meer boeken hebt gelezen uit die tijd, verbaas je je er volgens mij steeds minder over de welsprekendheid. Bovendien vermoed ik dat in de upper classes er inderdaad zo werd gesproken. Het vloeken werd toen veel meer als verfoeilijk beschouwd dan nu en was vooral weggelegd voor onopgeleiden. Ik denk zelfs dat ook nu nog in bepaalde omgevingen beduidend meer en kleurrijker gevloekt wordt dan in andere omgevingen. De dagboekvorm vind ik echt heel goed gedaan. Vaak vind ik deze vorm in andere boeken wat gezocht, maar in dit boek helemaal niet. Kortom met recht een klassieker 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 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. I have no idea how this book became a classic and changed the history of literary fiction. It was one of the most boring books I have ever read in my life, and I was an English minor in college. The points of view changed constantly, and two characters were named John/Johnathan...why would someone do that? If that's not confusing enough, one characters name basically changed during the book. Like, what the what? This was completely slow-moving, and action/drama-less. I was basically forcing myself to read the entire thing, and couldn't even get through 10 pages a day without falling asleep. I have mad respect for anyone who can read this and actually enjoy it. All I can really say is...skip this book. Watch any version of the movie instead (and I'm a stickler for reading the book before seeing the movie). Or better yet, read any other book about Dracula that you can find. This is a must read for any of the vampire fans. The classic story of Dracula told as an epistolary novel. A collection of letters, telegrams and realistic documents from a different characters and their point of view. Dracula's curse and eternal love traps innocent characters in a battle against evil. The mood, the world and the characters created around the fantastical characters are built in a very credible and visually artistic way. It's a very beautiful and sad love story and an amazing villain. The beginning section Jonathan harker's journal, is really quite atmospheric and creepy. The ending was pretty exciting. In the middle there is a LOT of talk. Talk talk talk talk talk. There is almost no character development at all, except that all the characters (except the Count of course)are 100% selfless, brave, kind, and good. Among 19th century vampire tales, La Fanu's far less well-known "Carmilla" is better (not to mention, a couple of decades earlier). Intriguing but frustrating A beautiful start, atmospheric and gonzo in that lovely way that gothic fiction can be. But the novel circled repetitively in places, the pacing felt off (especially in later sections) and the ending was curiously flat. I did really enjoy Dracula himself and Mina Harker, though I almost wish it had stopped after Jonathan Harker's bit at the start and just been a short story. Or perhaps been a collection of tales about him. Is that an unpopular Dracula opinion? I really don't know. Ustaya Saygı - Detaylı İnceleme: https://parttimegamersite.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/ustaya-saygi-dracula-bram-sto... I don't remember the first time i had heard about Dracula, i only remember that it was in my childhood and that he was supposed to be this terrifying monster, too hardcore for kids, hence no Dracula books for me, even when i would beg my parents to buy one whenever i saw one in the bookstore. I dove into the book, expecting it to be a horror story, but too much time has passed since it was written, and it clearly doesn't scare at all now. The scariest part was one when they "kill" Lucy for good, but other than that, a vampire turning into bat, and flying around in nights and drinking blood of beauties has become too cliched, but still i enjoyed it, it's just that it wasn't scary at all. I wish i could tell my childhood self this thing, because i used to think that Goosebumps and Dracula are the Pinnacle of horror fiction, and i didn't get to read either as a child, although i now that I've read them, know that nothing can be compared with M.R. James. I used to read this book oven and over again when I was 11 or 12 years old, and this is the first time since that I revisited it. I had forgotten how wonderful this book is, for me it is so much more than just an adventure story! I love the idea that Bram Stoker has of humanity, the lack of cynicism, the melancholy and the forgiveness. He allows us to engage with all the characters, and he writes beautifully well. I really think this is one of my favourite books of all time. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)823.8Literature English English fiction Victorian period 1837-1900LC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |