I usually advocate for reading classics. Most classics are classics for good reason (though I will admit, I wonder about some of them). Some of my favorite stories are classics. But when it comes to Dracula by Bram Stoker, I’m a bit torn about recommending it.
Dracula is a classic for reason. Mainly for the portrayal of vampires and how it influenced vampire lore. The vampires in this novel are iconic. They are the kind of vampires I wish more stories would return to. I’m tired of sparkly vampires or vampires that don’t stalk the night to drink blood. I’m tired of romanticizing vampires as love interests. I want the vampires of Dracula with their red eyes and blood-bloated faces. I want vampires that sleep in coffins during the day and turn into bats in the night. I want vampires with aversions to garlic and sunlight and all things deemed “holy.” I want vampires to be monsters.
The novel of Dracula, however, is kind of boring. The story is told from a compilation of diary entries, letters, telegrams, and news reports. It’s a lot of telling, not showing. It’s a lot of opinions and dialogue and not a lot of action. The parts that are action-y can be exciting, but for someone who has grown up in a world where action movies reign as king in movie theaters and books are filled to the brim with kick-butt moments, it was hard to enjoy Dracula.
It takes the characters a long time to figure out what is going on. (Or in the case of Van Helsing to tell someone what he suspects is happening. Come on, dude!) It wasn’t until chapter 15 where they finally use the world “un-dead” to describe Dracula. Fifteen chapters! I also found most of the characters to be irritating. They make a lot of poor decisions and they do almost nothing to prevent Dracula from attacking. I wanted to grab them by the shoulders and give them a good shake. I mean, if a vampire is attacking you or someone you love, why would you stay?? Leave the city! Leave the country! But for goodness sake don’t leave someone alone and vulnerable while you go vampire hunting! Sheesh.
There were a lot of scenes and chapters that felt unnecessary and dragged out the story. A lot of the book could have been resolved a lot sooner, I think. But the ending was exciting, even if parts of it felt too easy.
Overall, I wasn’t impressed with Dracula. I enjoyed reading Frankenstein and Phantom of the Opera several years ago, but Dracula didn’t hold my level of interest and it was often a chore to read. The only parts I did like were in regards to the portrayal of vampires.
Do I regret reading it? Not at all. As I said earlier, I advocate for reading classics, and I’m glad I read it, even if it’s just to say “Hey, I read that book.” (Like I did with Les Mis last year.) It was an enlightening experience to read because I could see where a lot of vampire lore spawned from, but I think I much prefer watching Nosferatu than reading Dracula.
9 thoughts on “Book Review: ‘Dracula’ by Bram Stoker”
Twenty or so years ago when the latest big-screen version of Dracula came out, I tried to re-read the original novel. And I found it to be an uphill climb for much of the book.
Yeah, it was hard to concentrate on this book. I had to read it slowly over the course of several weeks, a chapter or two at a time.
I really enjoy reading Dracula (once in a great while) purely because it’s such a different style of novel than the modern ones I enjoy. I do agree, though, it can be a chore to get through. My favorite part of it was always the beginning introduction section, which is much more thriller-y than the bulk of the novel.
100% agree, though: THESE are vampires. I don’t see why people had to turn vampires into such comparatively wimpy things. They should be monsters.
It is a different style, which does set it apart from other books. I can appreciate that. And yes, the bulk of the novel is very unexciting, but the beginning and end were thrilling.
Yes, more monster-y vampires!
It’s weird: the styles are so different that it’s almost like there are two different books within Dracula. Still, it is certainly worth reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was my first gothic lit book and I enjoyed it. Was like a primitive vampire story to me.😃
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a good vampire story! I just think the style of writing put me off a bit. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Top Ten Tuesday: First Books I Reviewed – Books and Waffles
Pingback: Top Ten Tuesday: First Books I Reviewed | Keeper of the Wood Between Worlds