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

I was fifteen when I first read Dracula. My parents refused to give me permission because its was too scary. So I had to sneak it away and read it under the covers at night in secret with a flashlight. I was terrified. I couldn't take the trash out at night or go into the basement alone for a month. One early scene when Dracula crawls down the castle wall head first haunted me and chilled me to the core. When I was 30 while visiting my parents I saw the same Dracula on the bookshelf. I thought I had been silly to be so frightened and read it again. I was just as frightened! But I got more insight. Instead of simply being carried away by the story I learned more about psychopathology, gender roles, appreciation for education and the "rules" that govern vampires as metaphors for various kinds of evil in this world. The main and recurrent lesson I took then was that Dracula had many weaknesses. The force of his power rested in the fact that no one believed in him. That gave him full access to whatever he wanted (except to enter a home. He had to be invited in before he could visit when he wished.) At the Nuremberg trials when high ranking Nazis were in the dock, one witness took her time when she got off the stand. She walked slowly passed each defendant and looked carefully at his face. She said she did this because she knew she would never again have the opportunity to see them. Her shock and horror was that they looked like ordinary people. They didn't look like the monsters they were. I have to wonder if the Nazi atrocities and the atrocities that occur today are allowed to build momentum because so many people don't believe those horrors are possible. This class has given me my third reading of Dracula. Memories of old fears from previous readings came back, but this time I saw more depth in the characters and the story itself. The need for sacred space made me wonder if the vampire and the psychopath are particularly attracted to spiritual innocents among us or are innocents simply more vulnerable to exploitation. I never noticed until this reading that terriers drove the thousands of rats away from our heroes. I was delighted at this scene. I have three terriers and love them even more now that I know they will charge at Dracula's attempts to overwhelm someone with rats and save the day (or night). :) I didn't know, until this class, that Bram Stoker was a great friend of Oscar Wilde. Wilde's imprisonment for sodomy was ruinous to the heart and soul of Stoker. Stoker went into a serious retreat and started writing Dracula a month after Wilde went to prison. I can see the methodical force of evil infiltrating sweet and loving lives in a new way. It must have been Stoker's experience of the oppression and cruelty pressed upon the homosexuality community. It's a wonder to me that Stoker insists on giving not only Lucy and Mina, but all affected by the vampire contagion a release into kindness and spiritual freedom. I find it amazing that he could include redemption in his story. But maybe granting the possibility of redemption saved his own soul. Joanna Poppink, MFT Los Angeles eating disorder recovery therapist author: Healing Your Hungry Heart: recovering from your eating disorder

I usually read sci-fi, fantasy and thrillers. However, I wanted to read Dracula based on recommendations from friends and general acclaim. I would overall give it between a 4 and 4.5 for being quite a thrilling and daring tale of mystery and the supernatural (for its time). Some spoilers to follow. Nowadays, stories about vampires and werewolves are a dime a dozen, right? But, here's one book that helped start it all and probably sparked the imaginations of many. Dracula starts out following the narrative of Jonathan Harker and the world soon expands to include his wife (who is eventually afflicted), Dr. Van Helsing and Dr Seward (two relative experts and practitioners in psychology), Quincey Morris and Lord Godalming--in effect from the POV of one character to several. It can get confusing at times, but I feel the story is wonderfully interwoven by the mixed narrative. The story starts out following Harker (he's an associate) as he travels to and interacts with Count Dracula (who is buying some land in England). He is warned by the locals, sees little to heed their warning... until he has some strange encounters involving some siren-esque female vampires and then Count Dracula himself. He is eventually set under house-arrest, whereupon the first part of the story ends and we travel back to England. Here, the story mellows quite a bit and the pacing and intrigue (in my opinion) of the first part is undone. For modern readers, used to fast paced storytelling, the middle portion seems to drag on as we follow what eventually turns out to be one of the first major victims of Count Dracula (a friend of Mrs Harker). The gang eventually determines that the victim has been afflicted and they must take drastic measures to contain her actions. Upon doing so and with the return of Mrs Harker with Jonathan Harker, they whole crew sets about trying to thwart and actually defeat Dracula. Now, we come to the final part of the story where the narrative picks up again towards a strong end. I won't spoil it, but there is much adventuring and sleuthing on the parts of all the characters. The story is able to convey some strong emotional connections between the reader and the characters. Ultimately, the story delivers on a strong beginning and lands a great ending. I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys mysteries, slow-burn narratives and fans of the classic.

"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.

For some time I had considered reading Dracula, but not being interested in the modern vampire and zombie movies and television programs I avoided it until a year ago. I decided to read some of the classics and chose this one because I had seen the Dracula movie long ago and wanted to be able to say I had read the book. I found it on YouTube and began by listening to it, but then found it for free on Kindle so finished it that way – which was better for me. This story so captivated me I had to keep reading. Bram Stoker’s writing style and beautiful use of language is thrilling to read, and the characters he created made for such a good story. The only problem was that I had to put the book down when it got late into the evening. It freaked me out a little! Not that I believe Dracula to be real but Stoker’s brilliant writing and settings really spooked me! I couldn’t read it after dark. Now that is good writing. I am so glad I read this book. The story is written like a diary but with each person writing from their own perspective. If that sounds boring or as if it would be hard to follow, it isn’t at all. It makes it very interesting. The reader wants to keep reading to know what is going on since last hearing from each character, where is Dracula in his plotting, who else is going to meet with trouble at his design, how are they going to defeat him. Points of interest: Other titles Stoker had for this book were The Dead Un-Dead, and The Un-dead, before deciding on Dracula His main character was called Count Wampyr until Stoker came across the name Dracula while researching for the book Dracula is an old story, but not quite the original vampire story since Stoker borrowed some details from a couple of previous authors, but he built on that and made it better. Vampire stories told now could not be what they are without Bram Stoker’s Dracula. If you think you know about vampires from what is currently written, do yourself a favour and read Dracula for the ‘real’ story, even though it’s fiction. :) I don’t believe you will be disappointed.

Dickens was the prime exponent of Victorian literature, but he had lots of company. The 19th Century was the great age of melodrama. The emotions were big, the prose purple, the coincidences uncanny. Damsels got into distress. Sweet and innocent people died. Foreigners were stereotypes who talked funny. Villains were easily identifiable and got their just deserts. Bram Stoker’s DRACULA is a wonderful example of a Victorian popular literature, in addition to being the granddaddy of all vampire stories. Stoker invented the vampire rules (e.g., “Vampires can’t abide the crucifix” and “vampires can’t cross over water without being invited”). Is it scary? In comparison with films like “Alien” it’s not scary at all, but you can see how it might have creeped out 19th and 20th Century readers. The “scientific” aspects will make even today’s children scoff. (For example, a lady is anemic and needs a blood transfer. The doctor takes blood from four different donors for her without ever testing any of them for blood type!) Nevertheless, it’s a lot of fun on several levels. Three stars and a smiley face.

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.

Fun to read the “original”.

I rather enjoyed the steady pace that the book took through the lives of the main characters. I was very surprised and encouraged by the camaraderie and friendship that the main characters had for each other. I actually saw a lot of allegory between Dracula's curse and sin in general, the way that certain choices we make can lead us involuntarily down a road which we may not have wanted to go. Lots of great messages in this book, not the least of which in how to treat people. I found the story to be completely different from the movie of the same name that came out in the 90's. Yes, some of the elements were similar, but the book was much, much better. Not just better in the sense that there were more pages devoted to developing the characters. Better in the sense that the characters respected each other and genuinely wanted to be friends. In the movie, everyone was pitted against each other, united only by their greater hatred for the Count than for each other. In the book, Lucy was a spotless woman of integrity. In the movie, she was basically a whore. Dr. Seward was a trustworthy gentleman who hunted w/ Quincey Morris, in the book (i.e. a capable gentleman). In the movie, he was a sniveling weasel who took drugs to cope with his job at the sanitarium. Van Helsing was a commanding and respected gentleman in the book. He was commanding in the movie, but nobody really respected him. He was kind of a crazy freak. The whole thing between Mina and the Count...don't get me started. That was just dumb. The book has a much better "relationship" between them. That is, NO relationship. The Count doesn't need some contrived backstory to "bring the whole thing together". Better his origins remain a mystery than set up a situation where Mina was "justified" in her unfaithfulness to her husband because "she was married to Vlad first in some past life" (the movie doesn't say this, but it is all but implied). The book is great! Read and be encouraged at the resiliency of people who love each other!

Premesso che avevo visto il film di Coppola ma il libro non lo avevo mai letto, mi sono avvicinata pensando di sapere la storia perfettamente. In realtà il film si discosta di parecchio dal libro di Bram Stoker, resta comunque un ottimo film. Per quanto riguarda il libro, logicamente occorre sapere l'inglese oppure scegliere la versione italiana, a parte questo è emozionante e non annoia, pur essendo stato scritto fine ottocento, certi aspetti sono attualissimi. Concordo con chi, prima di me, ha scritto che si avverte, lungo tutto il racconto, la presenza del Conte. Una presenza inquietante e seducente. Consiglio davvero questa lettura

Un clásico escrito en un estilo y forma absolutamente impresionante. Una historia fascinante llena de giros recorriendo una Europa no tan lejana en el tiempo pero tan diferente y misteriosa que fascina desde la primera página

Fan de littérature et de surnaturel, Dracula reste une œuvre majeure... L'intrigue est menée d'une main de maître par un Stoker excellent. Dracula est un classique à découvrir sans attendre sur Kindle ou en livre papier, partout et toujours, ses dents veillent sur votre cou de mortel... Dracula restera le plus charmeur des vampires de tous les temps. Loin de la littérature vampirique adolescente de nos jours, le livre est source inépuisable d'inspiration et lorsqu'on le lit, on comprend pourquoi...

I grabbed this yesterday as a freebie complete with an audible narration yesterday (9/12/16) ..& very good it is too, you forget with so much "vampire stuff" about the origins of the story so it's nice to get back to the original classic, Tim curry is very good (as usual) but the female voice "talent" is a bit comedic & well "crap". ..it doesn't ruin a good story & I heartily recommend you avail yourself of this whilst its around for zero £0.00. Running at around 15 hours that's a good amount of listening whilst working / relaxing, (I like to do otherwise boring DIY jobs on my own with a decent book playing in the background, ..this is one of those, the prose is pretty modern, nothing to trip or confuse the listener. Recommended

Bram Stokers "Dracula" ist ein ikonischer Roman, der die Leser auch heute noch mit seiner schaurigen Geschichte fesselt. Die Handlung spielt sich in Transsylvanien und England ab und folgt dem berüchtigten Grafen Dracula, während er versucht, seinen untoten Fluch über die Welt zu verbreiten. Mit seinem epistolarischen Format entfaltet sich der Roman durch eine Reihe von Briefen, Tagebucheinträgen und Zeitungsausschnitten und bietet so ein fesselndes und immersives Leseerlebnis. Stokers atmosphärische Prosa und lebendige Beschreibungen entführen die Leser in eine Welt der Dunkelheit und der Angst, in der Vampire im Schatten lauern und alte Übel erwachen. Die Figur des Dracula selbst ist eine bedrohliche und rätselhafte Gestalt, die von Mysterium und Bosheit umgeben ist. Was "Dracula" zu einem zeitlosen Klassiker macht, ist seine Erforschung von Themen wie Liebe, Angst und dem Kampf zwischen Gut und Böse. Der Roman taucht tief in die menschliche Psyche ein und berührt unsere tiefsten Ängste und Sehnsüchte. Insgesamt ist "Dracula" ein Muss für Fans der Schauerliteratur und des Horrorgenres. Sein anhaltendes Erbe inspiriert unzählige Adaptionen und Interpretationen und festigt seinen Status als einer der größten Vampirromane, die je geschrieben wurden.