Dracula (Penguin Classics)

KindleUnlimited review. Highly recommend anyone who heard of or watched a Dracula film read this novel. Written in the style of a synchronous diary (i.e., epistolary format), the original Dracula story is a gothic Victorian horror novel containing several variations from the numerous screen adaptations.Each early chapter is entitled “Jonathan’s Harkin’s Journal” and starting with “3 May. Bistritz” is similarly dated with the day and month with occasionally the time. Starting in Chapter 5 the narration expands to include person correspondence between Mina Murray & Lucy Westenra and Quincy Morris & Arthur Holmwood as well as a diary entry from Dr. John Seward. Chapter 6 includes Mina’s journal entries from to 24 July to 6 August and Dr. Seward’s diary entry from 5 June to 20 July. This unique narrative approach continues and expands throughout all 27 chapters (last dated entry 6 November) providing a multifaceted and rich world with an account of events from different character perspectives. As a side note, chapter 25 provides a physiological profile of Count Dracula commensurate with a crime scene investigation procedural program.I think the most interesting character not present in film adaptations is Quincy Morris, a noble American Cowboy brandishing Winchester repeating weapons. Although the love quad-angle between Lucy and three of the men (Morris, Seward, and Holmwood) appears farcical when first presented, it established the prior relationship between the men and why no animosity developed between the them after wards. Furthermore, the manly friends have participated in animal hunts where Morris the American was the director and guide.Another apparent anachronism is how wealth us in itself a virtue: “And, too, it made me think of the wonderful power of money! What can it not do when it is properly applied; and what might it do when basely used! I felt so thankful that Lord Godalming is rich, and that both he and Mr. Morris, who also has plenty of money, are willing to spend it so freely. For if they did not, our little expedition could not start, either so promptly or so well equipped, as it will within another hour.” Some may argue that this viewpoint is still prevalent is modern society… ergo economic might makes right.Although the novel was published in 1897, the year is omitted but presumed to be contemporary to the 1890s. Most notably is detailed description of Count Dracula: “His face was a strong—a very strong—aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor… I had noticed the backs of his hands… seemed rather white and fine… rather coarse—broad, with squat fingers. Strange to say, there were hairs in the center of the palm. The nails were long and fine, and cut to a sharp point… his breath was rank…”An odd dissimilarity is the locomotion of how Dracula traverses the castle’s exterior “just as a lizard moves along a wall” whereas in many movies he changes into a flying bat. Later he does travel as a bat, a wolf, fog, and a puff of smoke. Another story difference is Dracula’s ability to call and direct large packs of wolves. He clearly commands the wolves, rats, and spiders as he does any person under his vampiric spell.The story unfolds as a mystery. It’s not until the end of Chapter 14 that Professor Abraham Van Helsing reveals what actually happened to Miss Lucy. There are curious mentions in Stoker’s “Dracula” (1897) novel that make it seem more contemporary. Characters anonymously traverse London in Hansom cabs much like people take an Uber ride today. The party travelled from Paris to Varna via the Orient Express which predates the eponymous “Murder on the Orient Express” (1934) by Agatha Christie. Characters dispatch letters and telegrams like modern society send emails and text messages. Mina prepares typed pages of chronology organized journal entries with her traveler’s typewriter like printing on a modern computer. Similarly, Doctor Seward’s penchant to record his diary instead of writing had the character quip “How I miss my phonograph! To write diary with a pen is irksome to me; but Van Helsing says I must.”There is the typical Victorian ethnocentric view of other cultures. For instance, when discussing killing Count Dracula in Transylvania the author stated “We think that we shall not have much trouble with officials or the seamen. Thank God! this is the country where bribery can do anything, and we are well supplied with money. We have only to make sure that the ship cannot come into port between sunset and sunrise without our being warned, and we shall be safe. Judge Moneybag will settle this case, I think!”As usually the case, Raeford Renfeild’s and Dr. Van Helsing characters are more fully explored in the novel than it’s film counterparts. Renfield is possessed by Dracula much like Gollum in Lord of the Rings and is truly a pitiful character. Whereas, Van Helsing (both an experienced medical doctor, educator, and lawyer) is intelligent, brave, and sincere - a true friend. Similarly, many know that Dracula preying upon the neck of his victims is an allegory for sexual assault. However, the end of Chapter 21 and beginning of Chapter 22 details Dracula’s attack on Mina Harken leaves no doubt to the correlation. The Count’s backstory is summarized as “… he was in life a most wonderful man. Soldier, statesman, and alchemist… He had a mighty brain, a learning beyond compare, and a heart that knew no fear and no remorse... and there was no branch of knowledge of his time that he did not essay.“

I had never read Dracula before, although I knew it was an iconic book that gave rise to so many other vampire stories. I worried that it would be too creepy for me. But it is written so eloquently, and with such classy taste, that it didn't bother me. I was held in suspense, for sure, but never any nightmares! It's long, for sure, but worth every minute. I enjoyed the epistolary format, and the audiobook narration was phenomenal.

Bram Stoker had absolutely no idea just what sort of monster he was creating. I refer not to his title character, but to the book itself. It is highbrow enough that scholars and literary types feel the need to include it (if, perhaps, toward the bottom) on their lists of exemplary 19th-century popular literature, yet lowbrow enough to interest the common reader. This is not a slight to the "common reader"; I'm one, too, and I tire of dense, obnoxiously self-important prose. Stoker's goal was not to write "important" books. He knew exactly who his readers were - real people, not literary critics. That he managed to rise somewhat above even his own expectations with Dracula is a testament to his often latent skill. Stephen King has benefited from the seriousness with which some critics have taken Dracula, by often being taken more seriously than he perhaps deserves. King knows this, too; he has often described himself, tongue in cheek, as the McDonald's or General Motors of horror fiction. Stoker, while never as consistently successful as King, might have applied a similar description to himself.Dracula, though written at the end of the 19th century, seems a fairly modern book, at it moves swiftly and employs suspense techniques often associated with more recent books and films (i.e., the shifting point-of-view, "cross-cutting", if you will, between different first-person narratives to build tension). It works exceedingly well, providing a model and formula followed by many successors - though often with less impressive results.The central villain - Count Dracula himself - is quite rightly absent from the stage a good deal of the time, so that he may grow in the imagination of the reader as his invisible presence permeates nearly every page. He is always just on the other of the window, door, or wall, or just across the street - his nefarious intentions influencing events as the book draws inexorably toward confrontation with the monster.Dracula's flaw is also, in a way, its virtue: there are no evil human characters. Almost everyone is quite heroic and selfless in a sort of two-dimensional way. It is not that the characters are underdeveloped (as many complain), but that they tend to be representative of human beings' more enviable qualities, and therefor seem less realistic to the modern reader. But, then, one has to realize that the entire book is composed of diaries, letters, and faux-news clippings. I get a sense of subtle humor, of the "unreliable narrator" sort, from some passages of Dracula, as characters make themselves out to be more chivalrous, loving, and trusting than, perhaps, they actually were during the "real" events they describe. For example, one can only infer Dr. Seward's actual response to Van Helsing's request for autopsy knives so he can decapitate his beloved Lucy's corpse and take out her heart before burial! Reading between the lines, Seward's description of the event in his diary becomes darkly funny as he struggles to maintain a sense of 19th-century British decorum while relating the scene. His description of Van Helsing's anguish gives us a clue: Seward seems to suspect his mentor may be going off the deep end, and his expressions of blind trust in the old man may be a way of placating him.Dracula's greatest virtue, though, is its well-oiled plot. It's an impressive machine that still functions marvelously more than a century after its making. It is a mean, sharp skeleton fleshed out with numerous horrific digressions (the episodes with Dracula's "brides", the log of the Demeter, the "bloofer lady", etc.) that serve as tiles in a mosaic gradually completing the rather lean narrative that develops from them. Compare it with, say, Peter Straub's rather bloated attempt at the same technique in Floating Dragon, a rather messy and unsatisfying novel with isolated moments of brilliance, and you start to realize what a taut, precise engine Stoker really fashioned.What keeps me from giving Dracula five stars is that it's necessarily limited by its own goals. Truly great popular novels somehow manage to tell exciting stories while also reaching more deeply than they pretend. They reverberate on levels well above (and below) their apparent target. While many have read exotic psychosexual interpretations into Dracula, I find it shallows out rather quickly once it has served up its scares and menace. Yes, there is a genuine (and intended) erotic subtext, but it fails to be profoundly illuminating, since it was never intended to be. It serves its disquieting purpose, and then departs, rather than lingering. That's how Stoker designed his effects, and they work perfectly. He set out to write a good four-star novel, and he did.A hundred years later, it's still good four-star novel, popular as ever, as well it deserves. Excellent work, and worth a place in your library.

Classic Horror Story. The book itself is beautiful and the bindings are sturdy. I think if your a fan of Classic horror this should be on your bookshelf.