Is Bram Stoker's Dracula really that good?

[Wrath]

Fair Warning : There will be some spoilers regarding characters in the book so if you haven't read it and you're planning on reading it then i advise you to stop reading this.

This is my first post so it is kinda pretentious of me to speak for a big part of this community especially since i've seen many different oppinions being expressed on many subjects but,it would seem that a good lot of you agree that this book is indeed pretty good.I want to find out why.

Now to give you a bit of backstory;i read this book in its original version or at least the closest i could get to the original version,after being prompted by some posts i saw discussing books.

I gave it a go and though i found it to be an engaging book i was just not impressed.
Most of the scenery described is nice,but that all goes away after the first few chapters and we only see glimpses of it by the end,the characters were all shallow (with the exceptions being Dr.Seward and his patient)and the story just seemed to go in a loop towards the end before coming to an abrupt stop.

All in all i was left dissapointed and i want to know what other people find so good about it.
For me it was neither horror (though that might partially be because pretty much everyone knows about vampires to an extent so it kinda takes away from the mystery behind it)nor action for it was moving pretty slowly with gradual progress being made only towards the end.

 

[DoPo]

Define "that good". I find that there is a significant portion of people who are praising yet have never read it. Or even seen the movie(s) (also, neither have I seen them, by the way). And they are praising it in relation to Twilight (or something). Which is somewhat stupid, I guess. Is it good? Depends on your standards, I suppose, and your standards are probably affected by the length of time it passed since then, as you observed - it's not really that horrifying, because, come on, we have scarier things in some cartoons nowadays. It's not that action packed, because our media has been overflowing with action for several decades now, and at any one point, there are a dozen works trying to one up each other and everything else when it comes to ACTIONZ! ans stuff.

So it's not action or horror because you've been exposed to way more of them than there was a century ago. As I understand it, for its time it was pretty scary. And no shit, you can observe that by comparing it to actual legends - it's a legend come alive, yo! ...or written down. Legends, folk tales, scary stories have been around and have kept people up at night and then somebody writes this book where this all is not only picked up but elaborated on, expanded and brought into modern day. Of course now that happens in every third or fourth thing you pick up - book, movie, song, gane, whatever - you can have zombies, hellspawn nightmares, monsters and shit crawling all over your back yard in full HD in real time. But think back to when you first saw a scary movie - doesn't even need to be a horror one - I myself got really freaked out by Darth Vader. But yeah, think about a similar experience, since that's more like what it would have been.

It all comes down to what were you expecting from Dracula? I find this often a problem with people - they set their expectations too high and then end up annoyed when something fails to reach them. So is Dracula good? Yes, no, maybe - take your pick. What did it have to achieve to be good? Have more lore than the Lord of the Rings? Then probably not. Have a vampire? Then probably yes. Have a vampire that does cool stuff? Then maybe, depending on what's cool for you.

 

[Wrath]

Well it started off being pretty promising with good landscapes being described as he went to the castle and then the stuff that was going on in the castle was very good.i expected something similar throughout but the only hint of it was the patient.
Also it is irritating how interesting characters lose all potential and focus when the other,less interesting ones come into the scene and the fact that the book literally repeats itself without any of the aforementioned characters noticing it.

I haven't heard anyone compare this to twillight and to be honest i don't see why one would do such a thing since (personal oppinions aside)they only have vampires in common.Maybe what you say about the myth is true to an extent in that,people coming into it with a clean slate might find some appeal in the horror it has to offer but what i find strange is that people who know at least something about the thing and read it tend to praise it as much as i've seen it being praised.

Mind you i don't think it is a Bad book in a sense that "i can't keep reading this",i just don't find it to be a Good book.It's just A book and seeing how it didn't live up to its praise (for me at least)i want to know what people found praiseworthy about it.

 

[wintercoat]

My favorite part of Dracula is when Van Helsing and friends ambush Dracula in his house while he's trapped in human form. Just something about a group of middle-aged men beating up Dracula in his own house puts a smile on my face.

OT: I liked Dracula. I found it to be a very good read, if a bit dry at times. I didn't go into it with inflated expectations, though. I never do when it comes to books. Better to be pleasantly surprised than let down. It does get way too much praise from the general populous, though. It's a good read, nothing more.

Well it started off being pretty promising with good landscapes being described as he went to the castle and then the stuff that was going on in the castle was very good.i expected something similar throughout but the only hint of it was the patient.
Also it is irritating how interesting characters lose all potential and focus when the other,less interesting ones come into the scene and the fact that the book literally repeats itself without any of the aforementioned characters noticing it.

I haven't heard anyone compare this to twillight and to be honest i don't see why one would do such a thing since (personal oppinions aside)they only have vampires in common.Maybe what you say about the myth is true to an extent in that,people coming into it with a clean slate might find some appeal in the horror it has to offer but what i find strange is that people who know at least something about the thing and read it tend to praise it as much as i've seen it being praised.

Mind you i don't think it is a Bad book in a sense that "i can't keep reading this",i just don't find it to be a Good book.It's just A book and seeing how it didn't live up to its praise (for me at least)i want to know what people found praiseworthy about it.

People compare Twilight to everything. Well, everything but other shitty teen romance novels anyways...

 

[Padwolf]

It's a good read. I was made to read it for university and it was a bit dry and a bit dull at times, but it is really cleverly put together. Try not to set your expectations too high for it though, horror was very different back when it was written. It was very scary for the people of that time.

 

[Rawne1980]

I like it because it introduced Dracula.

Let's be honest, Vampires weren't a big "thing" back in 1897 when it was penned. Also, a book from 116 years ago may be a bit lack luster by todays standards of horror.

If you are looking for something old about Vampires then i'd suggest Carmilla. It predates Dracula by around 25 years give or take.

And some people compare Twilight to everything with Vampires in ... which pisses me off to no end. Considering there are no Vampires in Twilight (and no, just no, sparkle sun fairies do not count as Vampires) it's pretty hard to compare.

Overall though, given the era it dates from, I think it's a pretty decent book.

 

[wintercoat]

I like it because it introduced Dracula.

Let's be honest, Vampires weren't a big "thing" back in 1897 when it was penned. Also, a book from 116 years ago may be a bit lack luster by todays standards of horror.

If you are looking for something old about Vampires then i'd suggest Carmilla. It predates Dracula by around 25 years give or take.

And some people compare Twilight to everything with Vampires in ... which pisses me off to no end. Considering there are no Vampires in Twilight (and no, just no, sparkle sun fairies do not count as Vampires) it's pretty hard to compare.

Overall though, given the era it dates from, I think it's a pretty decent book.

So they don't count as vampires because lolsparkle? I didn't know "not sparkling" was what made a vampire a vampire. And here I was, thinking it was the whole drinking blood thing.

 

[DoPo]

I haven't heard anyone compare this to twillight and to be honest i don't see why one would do such a thing since (personal oppinions aside)they only have vampires in common.

Funnily, that's how they are being compared. Usually people point at Dracula as the way show vampires "right". And they are completely hilarious when they fail

?Yes, he is a vampire. Vampires, as they should be, are hideous predators that only seek to feed on humanity. The so called vegetarianism? that is present in Twilight offers no sustenance to a vampire. Also, when they go out in the daylight, they burn, not take a bath in a vat of rhinestones.?

(emphasis mine)
This is taken from NotAlwaysRight [http://notalwaysright.com/the-twilight-of-our-literacy-part-12/25052] and I just hope it was put on the website as a making fun of on both the girl and the guy who said this. In case other people read this and don't know what I'm talking about - Dracula does not burn in sunlight. This has never been any part of him (well, maybe in a movie, dunno - not the book though) - he is weakened in sunlight, yes, but that's about it - no actual harm sustained. For some reason, variants of this are too often repeated in Twilight discussions. It makes me sad.

what i find strange is that people who know at least something about the thing and read it tend to praise it as much as i've seen it being praised.

*sight* Ok, so this is another "overrated" thread. What praise ahave you actually heard? That it's the best thing everz? I never heard anybody call it that. What I've heard people people praise Dracula about is for kickstarting the entire vampire craze. All of it. One book. Without Dracula we wouldn't have had

Spoiler: This

This is count Orlok from the movie Nosferatu - Dracula is directly risponsible for it, because Orlok there was supposed to be him but didn't get the license or something so it was turned into a ripoff. One of the best well known ripoffs. And thanks to him vampires burn in sunlight nowadays

Spoiler: This

You can thank Anne Rice for popularising vampires as masturbatory aids.

Spoiler: This

Spoiler: This

Another direct responsibility of Dracula.

Spoiler: This

Alucard from Castlevania. Who is the son of Dracula. You know, direct again

Spoiler: This

Or let's

Spoiler: Expand on this point here

Spoiler: This

A.k.a. "Count Dracula is in another dimension and kicks ass." Kain in Blood Omen is undoubtedly influenced by the count - he's a noble and has pretty similar powers - shapeshift, super strength, walk in sunlight, fool others and so on. I've never seen any evidence for direct linkage but even if it's not, the portrayal has to have been influenced at least second hand from Dracula itself.

Spoiler: Even this and more

Like it or not, it's a result of Dracula again. Indirect one but still

This is what I've seen Dracula praised for, not for being a literary masterpiece or a must read classic anything near (let's face it - how many times have you encountered it as the book suggested for everybody to read, next to Kafka, Paradise Lost, and the like? I myself - never). What did you hear about it, though? I'm curious.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I haven't read it for a good few years, but I remember it was interesting at the start and at the end, but there's a lot of boring in the middle.

 

[lechat]

i've read the original (i think) and several versions or bastardizations and seen the movie (winona rider version)

it's just of a different era if you ask me
back when i was a kid i had a huge book of victorian ghost stories and although the theme varied greatly in each one (from church to school to house to town) you could sum up every story with the same blurb:
"someone shows up somewhere. shit happens. turns out they were dead all along. ghost"
the fact that there existed 20 or so so called classics with basically the same story shows a lack of originality and why something like dracula would have been considered special

i just think ppl expected less from books back in those days. considering it was a large source of entertainment you could draw comparison to how we now watch honey booboo or the fact we have about 15 reality shows dedicated to making cupcakes. exactly what will that make us look like in a hundred years time?

 

[King Billi]

Of course it's THAT GOOD! The fact that its still such a enduring character and story in the popular culture today is a testament to that.

Personally I thought it was really cool, I remember reading it a point when I was trying to read alot of well known "classic" titles to see what all the fuss was about and I was really interested in how alot of supernatural/fantasy stories from way back then always seemed to want to make themselves appear like true life stories.

Take Dracula as a specific example, this book is written as a series of diary entires and newspaper articles seemingly assembled together by someone long after the fact as though the whole story actually happened. I really like that touch, especially at the beginning when it states how "the significance of the order of these different papers will become clear upon reading them" or something like that...

I mean come on, how cool is that? It's like an 1800s version of one of those "found footage" films such as "Paranormal Activity" or "The Blair Witch Project" maybe this another less obvious influence Dracula has had on popular culture?


P.S. To anyone who is actually a fan of Dracula or even just vampires in general I would recommend to read this book, The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova.

 

[Rawne1980]

So they don't count as vampires because lolsparkle? I didn't know "not sparkling" was what made a vampire a vampire. And here I was, thinking it was the whole drinking blood thing.

Standing in sunlight and sparkling ... yep, you are perfectly right, that's how the Vampire legend began.

Or not.

 

[wintercoat]

So they don't count as vampires because lolsparkle? I didn't know "not sparkling" was what made a vampire a vampire. And here I was, thinking it was the whole drinking blood thing.

Standing in sunlight and sparkling ... yep, you are perfectly right, that's how the Vampire legend began.

Or not.

It also didn't start with vampires bursting into flames in sunlight either. The only qualification needed for being a vampire is drinking blood. Not even the whole undead thing is a necessity. Hey, take a guess what the vampires in Twilight do? They drink blood! But fuck it, they sparkle in sunlight, therefor they're not vampires!

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

It's an epistolary novel, which is a style that has fallen waaaay out of fashion in modern times. It also suffers from early installment weirdness, because it predates the vast canon of vampire fiction.

As a book, I never thought terribly much of it. I think the basis of its popularity is that it has long since fallen into the public domain - nobody needs to license anything to make a Dracula movie or write a Dracula book. Same with Sherlock Holmes.

Really, the whole thing is a thinly veiled metaphor for foreign people coming and seducing our frigid Victorian wives to turn them into bloodlusty sluts. Kind of tasteless, really.

 

[Wrath]

*sight* Ok, so this is another "overrated" thread. What praise ahave you actually heard? That it's the best thing everz? I never heard anybody call it that. What I've heard people people praise Dracula about is for kickstarting the entire vampire craze. All of it. One book. Without Dracula we wouldn't have had...

I don't think i really need to go into much detail but i can easily say that i've heard it (and seen it for that matter)being praised as one of the books everyone should read on several occasions as well as being praised for being an excellent read something i find odd.Now i wouldn't say that going into a book with these expectations gives it much of a chance but if a book has been getting so much praise as to be called a Must Read then one might expect something out of it and that would only be natural.

The fact that so much of our culture,be it modern or not so,is based arround this book doesn't really seem to prove much beyond the fact that people are willing to expand upon a material that has potential and that would be even more disheartening; the potential lost with this one.It could have been a revolution at the times plus something that would hold up and influence modern culture In Addition To being a great all-arround book and it seems to get away with a lot of stuff that other books can't get away nowadays simply cause of the fact that it influenced modern culture so heavily.

For example :

Spoiler

The fact that Many of the characters are one dimensional (i'm thinking of the people "fighting" for Lucy's hand as well as some of the main characters),in addition to that the second (and longest mind you)part of the book,is Lucy dying and them looking for the boxes with the dirt and though the former is interesting in a sense that,it showcases dracula's power and it introduces the villain while giving us a sense of helplessness that was hinted in the first part with jonnathan the latter is just a bore.But still all this is fine if done once.

What the book then does is:it shows us how helpless our characters are (again)while searching for the boxes and then repeats the Lucy death part with Jon's wife before deciding that "now is the best time to introduce something new that in no way helps the villain" and just completely contradicts the character of dracula (and what a contradiction that is)by giving his enemy something ultimately ends up being his demise.

And the ending is just a joke (i will not avoid any of the flack this is gonna get but Juust in case "In my Oppinion").So they go on a trip while Mina is dying and they find dracula on the way to his castle (and his castle mind you)and one of the characters that i doubt anyone cared about,dies.And in order for this to happen the books throws away what is it is good at (except the scenery which comes back for a last dance on the stage)and just becomes action.

 

[Esotera]

You've got to remember that it's quite an old book, and there will be a lot of cultural differences between then and now. Personally I really like the book as it does build suspense very well, but the genre has come on since then and it now seems a bit dated.

 

[Erttheking]

Having never read the story, I can safely say this. Still a better love story than Twilight, and I'm pretty sure that the girl in this one gets kidnapped by Dracula and forced to drink his blood.

 

[Bobic]

Honestly, I pretty much share my opinion with the OP. First four chapters (in the castle) are amazing, they draw you in, paint an interesting world, and genuinely intrigue. After that, the bulk of book drags, goes round in circles and generally wastes time, then, when the ending comes it reads as if Bram Stoker wrote it hastily in the morning before his homework deadline.

So yeah, not really a good book, but, as DoPo pointed out, it is an important book.

 

[COMaestro]

I read Dracula my first year of college, just for fun. It was a slow read, but I found it to be an enjoyable book. I did like the way Stoker wrote it as if collecting journal entries and newspaper articles. Gave it a sense of realism. As far as the complaints by the OP, if you were writing in a journal, how fleshed out would you make the people you mention? I think I myself would only give a basic description and then a first impression which may get modified in a later entry if something happens to change that impression. I think the problem you are really having with it is trying to view it as a standard piece of fiction where you often have a third-person omniscient viewpoint rather than a collection of (very dated) first person writings. You also cover some of the same ground because you read some of the events from multiple people's perspectives.

For those interested in an fun take on the Dracula story, try The Dracula Tape by Fred Saberhagen. It's Dracula as told by the Count himself to Harker's decendants. Makes some very good points too.

 

[Pink Gregory]

It's interesting enough, but certainly shows its age; much of the language seems abstract for its own sake, and you'll be reaching for the footnotes quite a few times, especially because Stoker writes northern/working class English accents in hilarious exaggerated phonetics and uses a lot of references to other works for no real reason.

That and it's a little light on motivation or characterisation, but I suppose taken at the time it was written, it might have been perhaps as straightforward as it's written.