Reviews with content warning for Racism - Dracula

I read this as part of Dracula Daily, where you read each letter/diary entry on its corresponding day. This made reading the novel easier because it was in small bursts, and if you're new to reading classics I'd recommend it! The novel is beautifully written and easy to follow. The multiple character POVs add depth to the story you don't usually experience, but it's a slow burn, which takes away some of the experience, so does the format of letters & diary entries. You're reading everything after the fact, losing some of the drama of the story. I like the agency Mina has as a character, which I feel can go unrepresented in a male-centric novel. Definitely give this one a read at the start of Autumn!

Content Warnings

yilliun's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Diverse cast of characters? No

3.75

Overall, I enjoyed this much more than I expected I would. The last ~100 pages were such a slog for me to get through.

Content Warnings

waytoomanybooks's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous emotional mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.5

When I read one of "the classics," I pause and remind myself that I'm about to step into a different time with different people who held different and sometimes/often offensive beliefs. A "classic" may not be a good story with good characters, but instead may be a good window into the time and place it was written and set in. And "classics" are also saddled with the moniker of being "over-hyped." With this in mind, I can firmly say that I thoroughly enjoyed Dracula! I didn't feel like I was stepping into a totally unfamiliar world because Stoker is descriptive without making the reader feel bogged down with details or flowery descriptions. I think the characters, while quite overwrought, were fully fleshed out *rim shot* people, and I'm pleased to say that this includes the women! Dracula is very much worth the hype. I can see why it's maintained cultural relevance and why its tropes and themes remain popular after 127 years. I was waiting for the mythical "right" time to read this book, and I'm glad I got to enjoy it during spooky season!

Content Warnings

bearystarry's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional mysterious sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.0

This was a lot different than I'd expected it to be, but I still had fun reading it!

Content Warnings

wextra's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional mysterious sad tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.75

An underrated classic that modern audiences unfortunately will likely not give the time of day because of its pacing, Dracula is the pinnacle of tension building. While there are many slow and repetitive parts of the novel, they exist to build towards the key sequences of the novel and the pay off never ceases to exceed expectations. There are few novels in the English language that reward a reader's patience quite like Dracula and if you are willing to give it its due, you will come away with a great appreciation for the work.

The cast of characters is somewhat underdeveloped compared to modern standards but the novel is in service to its plot primarily and this criticism extends most to the handful of major characters who unfortunately do not get the chance to write from the first person. The method of storytelling that Stoker employs, the use of journal entries, letters and newspaper clippings, to drive the narrative, favors several characters over others, giving the reader more familiarity with Jonathan Harker, Doctor John Seward, Mina Harker and Professor Abraham Van Helsing than any of the rest of the cast. But I feel the criticism is overstated as it's clear that each of these characters have well-defined goals and values. Lucy Westerna, despite being a narrator at several points, is unfortunately left underdeveloped but her role is more plot device than character and her particular traits likely appealed more to the audience of Stoker’s day than to modern audiences.

But the setting and mood shore up the weak characters. Every scene is truly vivid and detailed and while characters may often be lost in melodramatic prayer for paragraphs at a time, it does bring with it the sense of dread that Stoker sought to evoke, although again, it's a writing tactic that likely appealed more in its time than to modern secular audiences removed from such constant conversation with the holy.

Unfortunately, there is the elephant of the room of eugenics, racism and xenophobia which will absolutely turn off many modern audiences. While not the crux of the novel, phrenology and it's relationship to criminology and psychology is mentioned numerous times throughout the novel and clearly was influential in the development of the story. Likewise, the novel portrays the Romani as cult-like devoted followers of the Count at several points and the appearance of the Count himself is orientalist in design, meant to evoke a fear of men of the near east. This is absolutely much to the novel worth reading anyway but these are ideas dropped from many adaptations even in the early 20th century for very clear reasons as they quickly dated themselves. Modern readers unaccustomed to the sheer racism of Victorian literature would do well to steel themselves against the portrayals to find the good qualities within if they remain curious about the novel.

And I think it's worth revisiting for the curious and definitely for anyone seeking to study the gothic horror genre, perhaps for their own writing. There is so much to learn and experience in Dracula if you have the patience for it. And I hope you will.

Content Warnings

vans_1's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

Dieses Werk hatte ich als Jugendliche (vllt. Mit 15) gelesen und fand es damals unendlich langweilig.
10 Jahre später habe ich es nochmal probiert und bin insgesamt positiv überrascht.
Der erste Teil, Jonathan Harkers Reise nach Transsylvanien war und ist lesenswert, mit interessanten Charakteren und dem Bewusstwerden, dass er sich in einer ziemlich ausweglosen Situation befindet.

Der Teil mit Lucy,Mina und den Herren konnte ich jetzt besser lesen. Die beiden Frauen haben eine schöne Freundschaft und die Charaktere haben alle ihren eigenen Charme.

Sehr gut gefällt mir die Umsetzung des Konzepts, dass es auf mehreren Perspektiven geschrieben wurde. Das Buch ist eine Ansammlung, überwiegend aus Tagebucheinträgen.

Der Spannungsbogen des Romans ist nicht so perfekt gelungen und die Sprache wirkt etwas altbacken, was aber einfach dem geschuldet ist, dass das Werk aus dem späten 19. Jh. Ist.

Content Warnings

lenorayoder's review against another edition

Go to review page

mysterious

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

Overall, this is a high three stars for me. There’s a lot to love here, but there are also some significant problems. If a book that I really want to read takes me 19 days to get through (most of those being swallowed by the middle of the book), I just can’t say that I really liked it.

First the pros: Dracula has the makings of a fascinating villain, evidenced by the many adaptations he’s inspired. There are a few moments that are fairly chilling, but I think his real strength is that every interaction has a creepy and/or disturbing undertone that makes him compelling. And

buying a home next to an asylum

is SO smart.

Count De Ville

made me CACKLE, what a dramatic bitch. I love all of the vampire lore, and seeing how much has changed and stayed the same around vampire (and werewolf!) mythos since this book was published. I’m especially curious about all the rose stuff, I’ve never heard that before. The idea that vampirism is almost a trance state that happens

more and more often before death makes it permanent

is such a good idea and works really well here.

I love Jonathan’s journals, and how much of a wife guy he is. Which makes sense because Mina is amazing, and I was so relieved when we first switched to her journals and she was an interesting character. Loved when Jonathan threw some serious shade at Van Helsing in his journal

for making Mina upset (“with actually a smile”)

. I found Seward’s

proposal

incredibly endearing. I love the weird dynamic that Morris, Seward, and Arthur have in combination with Lucy and

without her

- those boys are in looooove. I think Lucy SHOULD be allowed to marry all three of them. The whole

vampire hunting

crew is a little stupid (why aren’t they all wearing crucifixes 24/7 at the very least?), but honestly I think that’s realistic. Like Jonathan making a will

in case he dies vampire hunting

and the only beneficiaries being members

of the vampire hunting party

? Iconic. What an idiot. I wonder if he ever

grew that gray hair back out

.

Some of the writing hits really hard - what comes to mind immediately is the description of Lucy’s

evil vampire face, especially the part about Medusa’s snakes

, and Jonathan and Seward’s early diary entries.

The cons: Dracula is absent for a lot of the book, and when we see him again he’s

not as impressive as he was

in Jonathan’s early diary entries. I don’t like that a lot of his character is interpreted through Van Helsing. I don’t think we’re supposed to see Van Helsing as an unreliable narrator, which is frustrating as both a missed opportunity and because the way he deduces Dracula’s motivations and actions is so flawed that he shouldn’t end up being right. Also all the “child-brain” and criminal determinism was problematic, weird, and really undermined Dracula’s scare factor. The vampire lore also gets a little muddled once Van Helsing starts interpreting. Vampires

resting in holy ground and fixing that by making the ground more holy

was just plain stupid. The

three-foot-long stake

made me laugh and I doubt that was the intention.

For an epistolary novel I don’t think different character’s writing varies enough in tone, and some of the dialogue feels unrealistic, especially characters writing dialogue with accents and poor grammar into their journals - it was irritating to read for no reason, like who does that. Steward’s diary and Jonathan’s early diary feel mostly realistic, but the rest of the time they don’t feel enough like actual entries for me. Also, the in-universe explanation for why this book exists makes all of the really slow parts (and there are SLOW PARTS) make no sense, and I resented those slogs more once I read the explanation. Either filler should be cut out, or the filler should form an actual subplot. There were chunks of the book that took me days and days to read because they just weren’t compelling.

Mina is an interesting character with a lot of potential but Stoker is clearly sexist and that sexism really mars her, and makes a mess of Lucy (and her mom!). Hated how Van Helsing talked about both of them but especially Mina, ugh. Renfield feels like a lost character - it was never really clear what was going on with him, and I think that needed to be clearer with a better resolution, or he needed to be in less of the book. Van Helsing really rubbed me the wrong way, especially with the constant monologuing. I’m surprised he’s become such a focus of adaptations.

The action sequences are all lackluster, and a lot of them are the result of pretty contrived plotting (like the

keeping things from Mina, then not, then back again

). Overall I think this book mostly suffers from being a little too long. Some plot points get stretched too far, some themes are poorly defined, and a lot of characters are underdeveloped. If Bram Stoker had had a good 20th or 21st century editor I think this book would have been four or even five stars, but alas. I think the fact that almost every adaptation varies wildly from the source material kind of speaks for itself.

Content Warnings

rubiera's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

Content Warnings

More...