Dracula by Bram Stoker

Genre: Classic Literature/Fiction

Ratings (for the whole series):
Ease with which to read/enjoyable narration style 2.5
Suitable ending 2.5
Personal favoritism 2.5
Poetic language 2.0
Memorable 4.5
Original, creative plot 4.5
Original, well-developed characters 3.0
Probability of recommendation 3.0
Ability to "move" emotionally 1.5
Literary value and/or educational value 5.0
Total: 31.00

Final Rating: 3 stars

4-sentence summary:
Jonathan Harker is a young English solicitor who visits the eery Transylvania to aid a new client in his transition to his newly acquired London property. The client in question is Count Dracula, an unsettling older gentleman whose strange tendencies become clear to Jonathan throughout his stay in Transylvania. Count Dracula is in fact a vampire, and he begins to wreak havoc on London and on those whom Jonathan, and his fiance Mina, know and love.


Critique:
(I finished this book with an assortment of various media: Kindle for iPad, Kindle for Mac, and listened to an audiobook)

So many things to discuss! First of all, I had never read Dracula before a few weeks ago, and had never seen a movie about it. Everything I knew about Dracula was hearsay and common knowledge.

I couldn't help but compare it to Frankenstein as I went along. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is so incredibly different from the green Frankenstein with bolts in his neck as shown in popular media. Dracula stays more true to his form, even in popular media. But it's impossible not to compare him to the 'modern day vampire', and my curiosity was piqued.

Bram Stoker created (or altered) many of the myths of vampire that we know today (no reflection in a mirror, no shadow, craving blood, association with vampire bat, sleeps in a coffin, aversion to both garlic and crucifix) but many of those myths have been misconstrued. For instance, Stoker's Dracula does not burst into flame in sunlight (or, I might add, sparkle). His vampires can even walk around during the day; they are just weaker and more vulnerable. In the book, they also have the ability to command "lesser" animals such as rodents and wolves (which I found especially interesting, given the recent werewolf vs. vampire fascination). It's believed that Stoker took some of these "vampire traits" from old mythology about vampires, but created a large portion of it himself. (Research into vampire mythology is actually quite fascinating, albeit disturbing. Stories such as this are particularly troubling).

Now on to the plot! ... I don't have much to say. Aside from creating one of the most captivating villains of all time, I don't think Bram Stoker was a very talented author. The plot is sluggish and almost unbearable at points. For such a fascinating plot, you'd think it would never lag. However, I think the story would be more fitting for a novel half the size of this one.

An interesting aspect of the plot (as I've also researched into the novel to some depth) are the themes within. My favorite, of course, being the theme of Victorian female sexuality. The book does a wonderful job of linking loose women with Hellish monsters. Another aspect of the book I loved is the historical background for the novel; it's believed that Stoker loosely based Dracula upon Vlad the Impaler. It's no wonder this book has been subject to endless speculation and research. It's also full of imagery and metaphors that are perfect for a high school English class.

Despite the fun history behind the novel (and also despite the terrible movie adaptations of it) I found I could not fully enjoy the novel. From a literary standpoint, it's a brilliant novel with lots to offer. But from an average reader's standpoint, it remains pretty sluggish and sometimes even predictable. ("She has bites on her neck. Let's spend 30 pages wondering what that could mean!") I would recommend it if you have a desire to "read the classics" or are curious about the mythology of the vampire... but aside from that, I probably wouldn't recommend it.