Scan barcode
crystalvaughan0603's review
5.0
This book was truly an eye opener. I had never taken Stoker's inspiration for the character of Dracula into consideration, but it seems that Stoker amassed inspiration for his greatest creation from many different sources. Fascinating book & a fascinating biography of Bram Stoker & the men behind Dracula- Henry Irving, Oscar Wilde, Jack the Ripper & Walt Whitman. The character Dracula, when seen through the lens of characters that Stoker knew & called on to inspire Dracula, makes sense & I can see the bits of each man in the portrayal of Dracula.
chamomiledaydreams's review
informative
medium-paced
3.0
I've read "Dracula" twice now, and I love vampires, so this book instantly caught my attention. It taught me a lot about Bram Stoker's personal and professional life, and I enjoyed getting a glimpse into the world of nineteenth century theater. I also liked seeing the overlap of authors such as Oscar Wilde and Walt Whitman, since it helped me orient myself in history. It's fun knowing which authors read which notable works and how their social circles might have overlapped.
Still, I'm not convinced about some of the parallels that Steinmeyer seems intent on drawing. There are a couple of passages where he compares the descriptions of real figures (Oscar Wilde and Walt Whitman) to descriptions of characters in Stoker's novel. I don't think they're all that similar, to be quite honest. Sure, there's a stylistic pattern of describing hairlines and nostrils that I'm not used to seeing in other writers' works. But if I were to sketch an individual based on each of the descriptions, I don't think they'd be all that alike.
There's also a typo that really threw me off in Chapter Six. Steinmeyer delves into Stoker's notes and the early drafts of his novel, pointing out when things were first documented and when major events occurred in Stoker's life. However, I think that the months of March and May got mixed up. Steinmeyer writes, "The earliest dated page [of "Dracula" notes] is from March 8, 1890." A few pages later, he writes, "Coincidentally, Vambery dined with Irving and Stoker on April 30, 1890, just nine days before Stoker's first written notes for the vampire novel." This would make sense if the earliest dated page was from May 8th, not March 8th. I don't know whether the facts were misrepresented (May replaced with March while this book was being written) or the connection misunderstood (the months' chronological order confused, perhaps because of the similarity between the words March and May).
Nevertheless, I learned a great deal from this book. I may not be convinced that Stoker wrote certain elements into "Dracula" because of something specific that occurred during his lifetime. But knowing more about the cultural context in which he was writing enriches my experience of the famous novel and adds much depth to the name Bram Stoker, about whom I knew virtually nothing before picking up this book. I would recommend it to other fans of "Dracula," as well as to fans of Oscar Wilde. A knowledge of "Dracula" isn't vital, since one of Steinmeyer's chapters provides a thorough summary of the book. Still, having an established interest in the subject probably helps with reading comprehension, motivation, and analysis.
Still, I'm not convinced about some of the parallels that Steinmeyer seems intent on drawing. There are a couple of passages where he compares the descriptions of real figures (Oscar Wilde and Walt Whitman) to descriptions of characters in Stoker's novel. I don't think they're all that similar, to be quite honest. Sure, there's a stylistic pattern of describing hairlines and nostrils that I'm not used to seeing in other writers' works. But if I were to sketch an individual based on each of the descriptions, I don't think they'd be all that alike.
There's also a typo that really threw me off in Chapter Six. Steinmeyer delves into Stoker's notes and the early drafts of his novel, pointing out when things were first documented and when major events occurred in Stoker's life. However, I think that the months of March and May got mixed up. Steinmeyer writes, "The earliest dated page [of "Dracula" notes] is from March 8, 1890." A few pages later, he writes, "Coincidentally, Vambery dined with Irving and Stoker on April 30, 1890, just nine days before Stoker's first written notes for the vampire novel." This would make sense if the earliest dated page was from May 8th, not March 8th. I don't know whether the facts were misrepresented (May replaced with March while this book was being written) or the connection misunderstood (the months' chronological order confused, perhaps because of the similarity between the words March and May).
Nevertheless, I learned a great deal from this book. I may not be convinced that Stoker wrote certain elements into "Dracula" because of something specific that occurred during his lifetime. But knowing more about the cultural context in which he was writing enriches my experience of the famous novel and adds much depth to the name Bram Stoker, about whom I knew virtually nothing before picking up this book. I would recommend it to other fans of "Dracula," as well as to fans of Oscar Wilde. A knowledge of "Dracula" isn't vital, since one of Steinmeyer's chapters provides a thorough summary of the book. Still, having an established interest in the subject probably helps with reading comprehension, motivation, and analysis.
mommaraff's review
I don't like how down he talks about the book and how he focuses on the plays and Brams friends I really thought this would be more about Dracula.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review
1.0
How much you enjoy or read of this book depends on how much you have read Dracula.
If you have only read Dracula once, you will get much out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once, but have read nothing about Stoker or the his London, you will get something out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once and know history, you will get nothing out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once, read Belford, Florseacu and others, you will get absolutely nothing out of this book and wondered how what is basically Cliffnotes gets a hardcover book deal while cursing the fact that you brought in hardcover and then feeling guilty because it really isn't the author's fault that other people are stupid, but honestly he is really saying things you already know and hopefully this will go quickly at paperbackswap and you can find something good.
Crossposted at Booklikes.
If you have only read Dracula once, you will get much out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once, but have read nothing about Stoker or the his London, you will get something out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once and know history, you will get nothing out of this book.
If you have read Dracula more than once, read Belford, Florseacu and others, you will get absolutely nothing out of this book and wondered how what is basically Cliffnotes gets a hardcover book deal while cursing the fact that you brought in hardcover and then feeling guilty because it really isn't the author's fault that other people are stupid, but honestly he is really saying things you already know and hopefully this will go quickly at paperbackswap and you can find something good.
Crossposted at Booklikes.
christhedoll's review
3.0
It was alright but too much Irving and Wilde and not enough Stoker and Dracula.
stephang18's review against another edition
2.0
This is an interesting story, but poorly edited. It switches from biography of Stoker to psychological and quite unconvincing proofs of Stoker's influences.
irishcontessa's review against another edition
3.0
This had a lot of really good information much of which I did not know. Unfortunately, the author is incredibly repetitive and uses the same examples and information chapter after chapter. It makes it seem like he didn't have enough information for a full book.
More...