Dracula!

[Pyar]

I just started reading Dracula (Bram Stoker) a few days ago and so far it is really good. And it is very different than anything I've read before. I mean I've read books that are written in diary form but this is the first one where it is actually very good in keeping the suspense and mysteriousness in place. I really like how personalness of the diaries too. Frankenstein is one of my favourite books and it was a little similar in this aspect also (it had letters in it). I just read The Confessions of Max Tivoli (excellent book!) and that also was in a diary type format. But I'm still not completely sold on this type of style for novels though. I guess I don't like being dependent on the person writing the diary for whats going on in the story.

 

[Highlander II]

I read Dracula and was bored out of my skull. It just seemed to drag on and on and on...

I found 'Frankenstein' to be far more fascinating, personally.

 

[j d worthington]

I felt each lagged a little in spots, but not that badly; and I'd still put Dracula rather high on the list of successful horror novels, artistically speaking....

On the epistolary technique... that one I'll get into in a later post....

 

[Lobolover]

Hmm.Im actualy a bit tingly about reading the popular favourites.I prefer the lesser known stuff-there are alot of gems there-whereas im afraid of what might atract the GENERAL public-not saying I wont read this,though.

 

[Connavar]

I like any good horror story specially those with vamps but when i read it was in the epistolary technique i thought i will wait a couple more years before i will read this Dracula....

 

[Nesacat]

Am personally quite fond of Dracula though it does tend to drag in parts and you could quite safely skip some bits and go along if that was what you wished. I'll admit I did that when I read it the very first time, being all excited about finding out what happened next and next and next until the end.

However, I've had occasion to read the book many times since and have come to like the way it is written and now read it through without skipping along. It's an old book, written in a style not much used now and is perhaps not as swift or exciting as many vampire books today.

But still, it has its place in the history of vampire literature and opened many doors of interest to this realm.

 

[Joe Meils]

The "Diary exerpts" format was something of a fad for gothic novelists at the time. Not surprising though, that it never really lasted, since, with horror at least, it has the unintended effect of "distancing" the reader from the events taking place. Everything that is told, is happening in the past, and the person writing the entries may have a slant on things.

Dracula is a wonderful little victorian era potpoiler. It's lasted so long because it really was a rather subversive book for it's time, playing on themes of forbidden sex, corruption and of "those dirty foreigners coming into our country and dirtying up our women." (Yeah, I think there's a bit of xenophobia, and perhaps outright racisim, in Stoker's works as well.)

 

[j d worthington]

Well, the "diary excerpts" or epistolarian technique has lasted, and is still used, in horror as well as other types of fiction. Aickman used it, Campbell has used it, King, Ellison, Klein, Ligotti, and dozens of others continue to use it in stories now and again to this day. It's an odd technique, in that it both distances and makes more real for many readers the experience....

As for why Dracula has lasted -- I'd say there are a lot of different things going on there, but one of the strongest is the most obvious: the psychosexual aspect of the novel; combined with the fear/fascination surrounding death, the horror and perversion of immortality (on a mortal plane, at least), and the genuinely eerie atmosphere Stoker manages to cast over a fair amount of the work... not to mention the constantly felt presence of his vampire count over the entire thing (no small feat when he is actually physically present for so little of the novel)... for these and other reasons, it continues to resonate with a considerable number of readers more than a century after its publication.

 

[GOLLUM]

Hey I just lost my post GRRR!!

Anyway I was just going to say I quite like Dracula but for shorter stories by Stoker you can always check out Dracula's Guest and other Weird Stories (penguin edition).

I also have an Ilustrated Dracula, so I clearly have it bad...

 

[j d worthington]

Hey I just lost my post GRRR!!

Anyway I was just going to say I quite like Dracula but for shorter stories by Stoker you can always check out Dracula's Guest and other Weird Stories (penguin edition).

I also have an Ilustrated Dracula, so I clearly have it bad...

Pffft! Piker! You're telling me you don't have a copy of the Annotated Dracula or the New Annotated Dracula? Honestly....

Amazon.com: The Annotated Dracula: Bram Stoker, Leonard Wolf: Books

Amazon.com: The New Annotated Dracula: Bram Stoker, Leslie S. Klinger, Neil Gaiman: Books

 

[GOLLUM]

Pffft! Piker! You're telling me you don't have a copy of the Annotated Dracula or the New Annotated Dracula? Honestly....

Amazon.com: The Annotated Dracula: Bram Stoker, Leonard Wolf: Books

Amazon.com: The New Annotated Dracula: Bram Stoker, Leslie S. Klinger, Neil Gaiman: Books

No, nor do I have one for Frankenstein, so there!....

I've seen the New Annotated Dracula plenty of times in the shop but there's only so many annotated editions I'm prepared to buy right now.

I'm going to get something early next year that will be the crowning glory of the literature section of my library, it's a Norton edition(s) and it's an excellent collection. That's where my forces are concentrated right now.

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, the Norton editions are very much worth investing in. As far as the annotated Dracula (as opposed to Norton compilation) I personally would go for Leonard Wolf's, as it not only has wonderful annotations, but maps, various illustrations, photos, and other ancillary material which enhances the enjoyment of the book... and it (at least the hardbound edition; the cover on the tpb is rather less so) is also a very attractive book. The same is true of Wolf's annotated edition of Frankenstein, though here he chose the original 1818 text rather than the later, revised 1831 version, which was until fairly recently the version published since.

 

[SNG]

That was one of the first horror books I have ever read (and thoroughly enjoyed it). I think I was 13 and had been reading some weird books at the time, like "They Thirst" by Robert McCammon.

 

[sloweye]

I read Dracula and was bored out of my skull. It just seemed to drag on and on and on...

I found 'Frankenstein' to be far more fascinating, personally.

Agreed! was ready to put it down after about half way. found it quite dull.
Franenstein was a much better read, also Dr. Jekel and Mr. Hide was fantastic.

 

[dask]

That was one of the first horror books I have ever read (and thoroughly enjoyed it). I think I was 13 and had been reading some weird books at the time, like "They Thirst" by Robert McCammon.

Agreed! was ready to put it down after about half way. found it quite dull.
Franenstein was a much better read, also Dr. Jekel and Mr. Hide was fantastic.

Great! Dracula is one of the books I plan to read next October for Halloween. Don't SCARE me so soon. Read Frankenstein last Halloween and loved it.

 

[MontyCircus]

I really liked Frankenstein, and Dracula was also really good...except that it had a very anti-climactic ending...for me the ending dragged on, but up until that point I was loving it.

 

[Sargeant_Fox]

The "Diary exerpts" format was something of a fad for gothic novelists at the time. Not surprising though, that it never really lasted, since, with horror at least, it has the unintended effect of "distancing" the reader from the events taking place. Everything that is told, is happening in the past, and the person writing the entries may have a slant on things.

I think a fragmented narrative using diaries, ship logs, letters, newspapers and other documents only helps to heighten the suspense. It gives a fascinating overview of the story. Several unique voices populate the novel, completely lost in confusion as to what is happening. Each voice can only add a lit more to the previous one. I think it is ingenious, complex stroytelling.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The "Diary exerpts" format was something of a fad for gothic novelists at the time. Not surprising though, that it never really lasted, since, with horror at least, it has the unintended effect of "distancing" the reader from the events taking place. Everything that is told, is happening in the past, and the person writing the entries may have a slant on things.

Dracula is a wonderful little victorian era potpoiler. It's lasted so long because it really was a rather subversive book for it's time, playing on themes of forbidden sex, corruption and of "those dirty foreigners coming into our country and dirtying up our women." (Yeah, I think there's a bit of xenophobia, and perhaps outright racisim, in Stoker's works as well.)

Personally I find quite the opposite. Getting a chance to sneek a peek at letters of a very personal nature not intended for the reader make it feel quite intimate to me , almost as if you can hear the writer speaking.

All a matter of opinion of course...

 

[MontyCircus]

Mhmm, I really liked the diary/newspaper stuff in Dracula. They brought an authenticity to it all. Made the "willful suspension of disbelief" very easy to do.

It was a few years ago, but I vaguely remember parts where some characters had died or turned into vampires, and then it would switch to other letters where others were worried about them, that kind of thing. I thought it was very effective at playing the "you know something but the characters don't" game, creating tension in some places and pity in others.

 

[blairWitcher]

I like vampire and witch stories and I think Bram Stoker's DRACULA is one of the best ever written

I prefer Anne Rice's "INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE" though.