A review by misskitty14
Dracula by Bram Stoker
2.0
While I enjoyed reading most of the book, by the time I reached the final 20 pages I started to realize how little development occurred in the previous 380 pages. The book is very slow, which I don't necessarily mind, but it doesn't seem to pay-off. As a reader, especially one living in a post-Dracula world, the twists and turns are expected and lack any significant punch of excitement.
I suppose the true talent of Stocker is his ability to convey the distinct voices of his characters (the book is a collection of all their different journals and writings). Mina's and Dr. Seward's journals are especially distinct in the emotions they evoke. But I do have one qualm: Van Helsing's broken English is not consistent. Sometimes he speaks perfectly fine, other times it is a struggle to understand anything he is saying and there doesn't appear to be an explanation as to why.
Finally, the book's villain and end are lackluster, to say the least. We never really get much in the way of Dracula's background or motivation aside from general conclusions that the characters make about his character. I'm not a fan of the "Super Villain Monologue" but Stocker settled for a plot device rather than a complex, layered antagonist. And this is perhaps most evident in the conclusion:
One could argue that Dracula is not really about the titular character as much as how this band morally righteous, modern, enlightened Westerners defeat the old mysticisms of Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, no one really grows or learns anything besides the existence of such evil.
I suppose the true talent of Stocker is his ability to convey the distinct voices of his characters (the book is a collection of all their different journals and writings). Mina's and Dr. Seward's journals are especially distinct in the emotions they evoke. But I do have one qualm: Van Helsing's broken English is not consistent. Sometimes he speaks perfectly fine, other times it is a struggle to understand anything he is saying and there doesn't appear to be an explanation as to why.
Finally, the book's villain and end are lackluster, to say the least. We never really get much in the way of Dracula's background or motivation aside from general conclusions that the characters make about his character. I'm not a fan of the "Super Villain Monologue" but Stocker settled for a plot device rather than a complex, layered antagonist. And this is perhaps most evident in the conclusion:
Spoiler
The group rips open his coffin just before sunset, just outside his castle, and kills him just as he opens his eyesSpoiler
One could argue that Dracula is not really about the titular character as much as how this band morally righteous, modern, enlightened Westerners defeat the old mysticisms of Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, no one really grows or learns anything besides the existence of such evil.