Bram Stoker, Dracula

This, in my opinion, is a must for readers who like Victorian horror, although for me it is more of suspense novel.

This edition has a very comprehensive notes section and introduction and it helped me get through some of the dialect (there are sections which are written in Frenetic Yorkshire dielect) these are given numbers which you can refer to in the notes section and it then explains it in plain English.

I think it is well put together and the mish mash of diaries and letters and newspaper articles give to the over all plot in this book.

Some of the dialect, especially the Yorkshire accent, was difficult for me to get my head around and found that I was doing a lot of flicking back and forth for the notes section.

But this doesn't continue throughout the book so it isn't a big negative.

Introduction is very long but is informative about the author, then there is Maud Ellman's note on the text section although they are good I was itching to start the book!!!!

All in all an excellent read and I highly recommend it to all!!

Horror isn't a genre usually associated with a classic. Most classics (e.g. Great Expectations, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights) have some sort of love story in it, and are kept quite subtle and tend to be light-hearted. So, for Bram Stokers horror story "Dracula" to be classed as a classic can be thought of as odd. The only other 'different' book classed, as a classic is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The two books have been compared for years, and it can become tiresome comparing Dracula with only one other book (although, I must admit I will do so, in this review!). It seems that to gain the title classic is a bit like leaving good wine to mature. If the wine you've left is good in the first place, it will mature even better. But, if it's no good at the start, it'll be only that bit better after maturing. People assume classics are books that have been around so long that it's called a classic to be around so long. I define a classic as a book that's been so remarkable in it's time that it's managed to stay on top all these years, and gained itself the title classic, which it rightly deserves. And that's what Bram Stokers Dracula is - a book that was so different and remarkable in it's time that it's been kept on top over the years because of its brilliance.

After reading Dracula several years ago, I decided to pick it up once again. I recalled, I admit, merely nothing, which is odd as the book is over 500 pages long. I assumed it was either no good that I forgot about it, or that through reading so many other good books afterwards it was put to the back of my mind. Or the fact that at twelve, I didn't absorb everything in! Whatever it was, I chose to pick it up once again, and see why I remembered so little. There were times when I though: 'Oh, I remember some of this!' and others were I merely though: 'I don't remember any of this!" It was lovely, for once, to be able to read a classic that I knew very little about. I have seen the film at one time, but remember literally nothing about that, either, so I after popping down to get Bram Stokers Dracula from the local book shop I opened it up not knowing what to expect

From the second chapter I knew that it was a good one. Not since reading Wuthering Heights had I been gripped on a book, so. I think what caught my attention was Bram Stokers different way of doing things. Instead of it being in first person, or third person, the book was presented in numerous diary/journal entries and some newspaper cuttings. In the whole book there are over 5 peoples diary entries, and numerous telegrams and letters to/and from other people. I haven't seen a genius idea like this ever in a book I've read, and I think Bram Stoker dealt with it so well. In Dracula we get to hear so many people's fears and feelings, and that's because we get to see something so personal from them - their diary. A person's best friend is their diary. Even though I don't keep one, I know if I did I'd write all of my feelings down in it. And that's what the characters in Dracula have done. They've written everything they feel; all their emotions are down on paper. If the book had been in first person we'd have only have had one person's views and emotions. If it had been in third person we'd get to know very little from people. But, as it's all diary entries, we get to hear everything. Every emotion. Every fear. Everything. And that's, in my opinion, what makes Dracula a classic.

♣ Who Is The Real Dracula? ♣

There are a few main characters in the book, but I will only talk about the first two who are introduced in the first chapters to give a synopsis of the book. These two are Count Dracula and Jonathon Harker.

Jonathon Harker a well-respected solicitor from London is asked to travel to Transylvania to sort out some papers. An employer of his - Count Dracula of Dracula Castle - has bought a house in London, and some papers need to be signed. On his way to the Castle many strange things happen. He's given a crucifix to "protect him from evil" and many people beg him not to go to the "evil" castle. He is rather intrigued why people are trying to stop him, but thinks it more odd than off-putting, and goes to the castle. When he gets nearer to the Castle he is dropped off to walk the rest of the way. He is attacked by wolves on the way, and although not hurt, severely shaken up. From the second he enters the Castle, the surroundings and the Count are all very strange. After a while he realises he's now a prisoner in the Castle and has no way of getting out, or sending for help without the Count catching him. He, obviously, becomes very scared and wary, and he fears for his life. But, things get even stranger when Jonathon goes down to the Counts room and finds him asleep in a coffin:

"There lay the Count, but looking as though his youth had been half-restored. For the white hair and moustache were changed to dark iron-grey the mouth was redder than ever, for on the lips were gouts of blood, which trickled from the corners of the mouth and ran down over the chin and neck. Even the deep burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh, for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if the whole creature were simply gorged with blood"

Page 50, Jonathon Harker's Journal.

That is one of the first many descriptive parts that send a shiver down your spine. I've lost count (that's counting numbers, not Count!) the amount of times I've thought "creepy" and something sends a shiver down my spine. This and the description of how ghastly and ugly the Count is, after their first meeting, are the most effective in the book, and probably the creepiest. In a way, you're wary to read on after this. Not because you're scared, but because you think "God, if this is only the beginning " and still that is not fear, it's more of a wariness of what will happen. I know I felt this, anyway!

You don't really know more than what I've written above to read Dracula. Of course everyone knows what the story is, and probably the ending is. But that isn't a reason not to read this masterpiece. There are so many twists and turns in the book that you loose count of what has happened at times! From what I've written above you get a little bit more insight into what you already know. There are the myths and the legends, but this is what had put Vampires on the map. This is what has inspired so many people on Halloween night to dress up as a Vampire. This book has changed history in a way. But what intrigues me is, that Bram Stoker steps away from the normal pointy-teeth-and-black-hair scenario for his Vampire. His is much more disturbing and frightening. With his white hair and small moustache this description of a Vampire is scarier than usual!

♣ Where Did Dracula Originate? ♣

Many people to this day say that Bram Stoker got his idea of the Vampire Dracula from J.S.Le Fanu's novel Carmilla written twenty-five years before Dracula in 1872, about a female Vampire. Whether this is true or not I'm not sure, but there are certainly some devastatingly scary things that are associated with the novel. As I said, I will do what most do, and compare Dracula to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein! I must admit, that I see no similarity whatsoever between these two. Ok, they both have a sort of monster created, but Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster are so different in numerous ways. Frankenstein's Monster wasn't evil or un-loving. All Frankenstein's Monster wanted was love and attachment to a person after being rejected. He just happened to look like a beast. Whereas, Dracula is more cunning and is pure evil. They have no similarities at all, and both have been nicknamed the "Monsters of Classics". Well, in some respects they are both Monsters. Frankenstein in appearance, and Dracula in character. Not only are the characters in the book different, but the writing is as well. Frankenstein's Monster is much more emotional. It's his desperation for love, and that fact that he's unwanted and needs to be wanted. Is desperate to be. Mary Shelley writes with passion and pure emotion. Whereas, on the other hand, Bram Stoker sets out to scare. There isn't really any writing that makes you think "God, that affected me!" in an emotional sense. It's more to the sense that it affected you by scaring you! In my opinion, there isn't any similarity between the two books, only to say that they are the two odd ones out in the classics.

So, where did Dracula originate? Well, obviously the myth about Vampires had been going for years, but Bram Stoker had the talent to transform that creature into a Beast. By changing a Vampire into Dracula. Now, even, people call Vampires by the name Dracula that shows the impact he's had on people.

♣ But, Was It Any Good? ♣

Well, in one word - yes! I really enjoyed Dracula in many ways. I thought it was intriguing, interesting, and a good-read. I don't think that you can really understand the Dracula story until you've read it. That might sound a bit dumb, as it's obvious you're not going to understand a book by not reading it, but so many people say: "I'm not reading it, I know the story!" But that's the point I'm trying my best to make with this review - you don't know the whole story unless you've read it. Simple. People complain about Classics vocabulary, and that they don't read them as they're too difficult. Well, having been written in 1897, Dracula is only just over a century old, therefore the writing isn't challenging or at all difficult. I really didn't struggle one bit, and it was certainly the easiest Classic I've read in terms of understanding and ease-of-read. I think that may also be because instead of being emotional, it's very to-the-point, and sticks merely to the horror genre, and never strays.

Some people do consider Dracula to be just that, though - a horror story. And basically, it is, but it does delve a bit more than that. It tends to test you as a person. After we finish reading Jonathan Harker's journals we don't hear the name Count Dracula mentioned for almost another 200 pages. I found it so intriguing why Bram Stoker wouldn't mention the main characters name for this long, and why he wouldn't mention it not once even though the book is name after him. Well, even though there are times that we hear him mention, that's all it's kept at - him. No names mentioned. It's, basically, I presume to add to that suspense. And when you finally do hear his name mentioned it's a bit like pulling a splinter out after it being in for ages - it's being annoying you, yet, something to think of. Then when it's out you are relieved and excited. Bram Stoker tries to do so calmly:

" At Whitby when Count Dracula landed "

Page 225, Mina Harker's Journal.

That it's as if he doesn't want you to notice. But it is made obvious because he mentions the name so often afterwards. This was to me, so clever, and was just pure literary genius.

And I'll leave you, with what everyone says about Dracula - the length. Over 500 pages sounds extremely long, especially considering it's only set over a space of six months, but that much is needed. To me a long book is one that I get bored of after a while and find long-winded. But I never felt tiresome whilst reading, and to the very last page, literally, I was hooked; gripped. I don't think Bram Stoker wrote too much, and went on, as many people comment, I think, if anything, he could have kept me gripped even longer than he did.

So, whatever you're a fan of (I'm certainly not a fan of Horror!) Dracula will scare you half to death, let leave you with pure enjoyment no matter what. Dracula is different and that's why I love it. I love anything different. And I love the fact that Bram Stoker has managed to create such a masterpiece by being that bit different. It's definitely gone onto my top five of all time, and will stay there, no doubt, for a long time. Read it with an open mind and no regret.

ISBN - 014062063X

Matt Roberts 2004.