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 feel like I’ve been lied to my whole life. The impression society has of this book is of monsters and swooning ladies of a sundry nature. Instead it’s a story in which the strongest character is a woman of virtue and the group of men of the faith purge the world of a carnal life stealer. ( )

An incredible epistolary, a timeless terror carefully crafted, a Hammer Horror written as poetry.

Unfortunately, it is almost intolerably long-winded and repetitive. Even during exciting moments it was often a slog to get through. ( )

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. ( )