It's really about time that I read this book. I don't know much about 'real' vampires, having only read the soft porn version of vampire stories as provided by Ward and to some extent, Harris.

It was very enlightening to find out where (and how) much of the vampire mythos developed. And, for a classic book (which normally are boring, classist and sexist) it is quite interesting.

Of course, the events surrounding Mina just go to prove that classics are sexist - the men of the story protect her by keeping her ignorant and then when events occur that SHE KNOWS are bad and are what killed her friend (because she read Seward's notes on that), she doesn't bother to mention any of it to anyone. Because she was just a stupid little woman who was told to stay out of it...

yup, better to let Dracula snack on her than empower her, for sure. Next thing you know, women would want to vote... err... ( )

I don't know enough about literary history to talk about the book in context of when it was written and what it really means, so instead I will say that I liked the themes and progression of the story. Stoker begins by creating a convincingly menacing atmosphere for Harker as he slowly realizes that he is not Dracula's guest but actually his captive, while at the same time showing us letters from Mina's quiet life at home. I enjoyed how the story went from ominous ship docking at the harbor with no crew to people disappearing to Mina's corruption and release, and really enjoyed the theme of faith as power. I thought the story ended a bit abruptly, however. Dracula is slain within view of his castle in less than a page.

I read this in real time in the form of a blog (http://dracula-feed.blogspot.com/), which I think gave me a better appreciation for the story's timeline. In general I think this form of delivery worked well, although during the meat of the book it felt like every day there were 8 lengthy new posts to read, which really wore me down. ( )

I've seen a lot of Dracula movies. Some were good, most were bad and a few bordered on ridiculous. The book that spawned them all wasn't any of these things, but should be respected for all of the wonderful vampires it has inspired today. Dracula was dry and took a while to get through. Was it worth it? Sure, but only to those who love the vampire genre and want to experience that started it all. ( )

Being somewhat familiar with the story of Dracula, and his historical basis, Vlad Tepes Dracul of medieval Romania, it seemed appropriate to finally read the original source material, inasmuch as it is a celebrated classic of English literature. I was not disappointed, though somewhat surprised that the majority of the action takes place in London, not the Count’s castle in Transylvania.

While I enjoyed the story and the style of writing, I must say that I was quite put off by the edition of the classic which I read. The Enriched Classics Series contains voluminous commentary and interpretation which I found at times, ridiculous. Of primary irritation, was the “commentators” insistence that all things within the book be read through the prism of England’s treatment of Ireland. Every reference in the book is footnoted, many in an attempt to argue that Transylvania is somehow a metaphor for Ireland. For example: “Harken rides a tardy train from Germany to Hungary” (footnote: There were tardy trains in Ireland as well.) I’m not making this up. “There are four ethnic races present in Romania”(footnote: There are actually more, but the author has reduced it to four in order to equate with the four in Ireland). Really? Most absurd, our literary critic argues that the name Dracula is some bastardization of two Irish words meaning “bad blood”. Gee, and all these years I thought it was a reference to Vlad the Impaler, of family Dracul. After all, the cover art displays a field of impaled corpses beneath Castle Dracul.

Preceding the book is a lengthy discourse on the meaning of blood in Dracula, and how, over the years, literary analysts and commentators have evolved their theories on such meaning. I don’t know, perhaps Stoker viewed blood as merely a bodily fluid. Maybe Stoker’s work is full of hidden meaning. Perhaps he merely wrote an entertaining Gothic horror novel. In either case, it seems silly to presume the former simply because there were late trains in both Ireland and Transylvania.

I suspect that some readers may be put off by the style of the writing, inasmuch as it was written in the late 19th century. There are stretches in the novel (primarily in the absence of The Count) where the going gets a little slow, and the Victorian prose becomes a little tedious, but by and large, it is an immensely entertaining read. ( )

Apparently there is a lot of misrepresentation on what exactly is Bram Stoker's Dracula. I was under the impress that this was a more bloody, horror filled book than it really was. In fact, Dracula is more of a collection of diary entries, newspaper clippings, and letters describing the events in the story. It's not scary or gory.

The narrator Robert Whitfield was great at doing the voices for all the male characters. When Whitfield did the voice of the none English characters, his talent really stood out. It at times seemed that a different person was reading those parts. The female voices were all done in the same manner, where it was hard to distinguish one from the other.

The audiobook version of Dracula was hard to focus to for a large portion of the story. At the end it was easier to focus and get caught up in what was happening but not at the beginning. ( )