# Dracula



## LionofPerth (Sep 1, 2009)

I recently bought this at my uni bookstore with War of the Worlds, two books for a little over five bucks, Aus, I started to read this, and found it very well structured. I've spoken to a few people, and they just can't seem to read it at all. They found it disjointed, if I remember their comments correctly, and bland. 

I've gotten about a third of the way through the text and can't seem to find anything which gave me the feeling of what they experienced. Since this week is not going to be kind to my reading time, if you have finished it could you please tell if it worked for you or not, and why. 

Thanks ahead.

I should mention the title, and it's the Bram Stoker version.


----------



## Pandora's Head (Sep 1, 2009)

If you mean Bram Stoker's - then yes, it works and it is worth reading the rest. I don't get why people struggle to read classic lit. Their loss.


----------



## LionofPerth (Sep 1, 2009)

I find it very easy to follow, and can't see why people can't follow it. It was a simple read for me, as I said above, very well structured. The events are easy to follow, so I can't see anything that would confuse people.


----------



## Crazed Scribe (Sep 2, 2009)

I have only just read this book and thought it was a massive disappointment.I couldn't stand how much prose was spent praising Mina, that combined with the amount of information van helsing delivers in broken english irritated me.

I also felt that the end dragged on to come to an unimpressive ending.

It's a shame because i did enjoy the beginning.


----------



## Wolfbrother (Sep 7, 2009)

lol my sister said she couldnt read Dracula and found it dissappointing. yet shes a huge fan of Twilight. now ive never read Twilight but i cant imagine it coming anywhere close to Dracula


----------



## Mr. Madeleine (Nov 11, 2009)

Bram Stoker's is an excellent read. I've read it some 15 years ago, and I want to read it again.


----------



## Rustgold (May 16, 2012)

Oh please, is this a classic?

I mean it started slow but ok, maybe it would improve.  And then it got to Mira, and I'm sure I've never read such dribble in my entire life.  Please, give me Twilight book 4 three times over to read over this garbage.  Make me read every painful entry in my younger sister's facebook accounts (all 8 9 10 or 12 of them - that we know about) over reading one more page of Bram's Dracula.  Seriously, do they call this a classic?

Btw: If I'm writing horrible English, there may be a reason for it, no second guesses.


----------



## Terry D (May 16, 2012)

If it is so bad, why dig up a three year old thread and pull the stake out of its heart?

I read Stoker's Dracula when I was 9 years old and enjoyed it very much.


----------



## Skodt (May 16, 2012)

I thought the book overall was boring, but the story is a classic. I also enjoyed the way it was told diary style, although there is no way Twilight anything touches this work.


----------



## Rustgold (May 16, 2012)

Terry D said:


> If it is so bad, why dig up a three year old thread and pull the stake out of its heart?



Well I felt like putting a stake through my head after reading the endless dribble.  Anyway, would you have preferred me to create a new thread about it?



Skodt said:


> I thought the book overall was boring, but the story is a classic. I also enjoyed the way it was told diary style, although there is no way Twilight anything touches this work.



The idea of vamps is classic, this book simply isn't.  Diary style is fine, if it's not dribble.  And for all the gapping chasms in Twilight, it didn't have endless nonsense dribble, its dribble was actually important for the book.  The book is boring, and dull, and yeah a massive disappointment; so no, Twilight doesn't touch this work, for Twilight actually engages with the bimbo audience it's designed to.  The book Dracula just fails.


----------



## Skodt (May 16, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> Well I felt like putting a stake through my head after reading the endless dribble.  Anyway, would you have preferred me to create a new thread about it?
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of vamps is classic, this book simply isn't.  Diary style is fine, if it's not dribble.  And for all the gapping chasms in Twilight, it didn't have endless nonsense dribble, its dribble was actually important for the book.  The book is boring, and dull, and yeah a massive disappointment; so no, Twilight doesn't touch this work, for Twilight actually engages with the bimbo audience it's designed to.  The book Dracula just fails.



I think your actually missing in this that Dracula connected to the people of the time it was supposed to. You say Twilight connected to young female readers, well Dracula connected to plenty of older and older time readers. Still to this day it connects to people who like that style of writing. I think your missing context of what the book was directed to and the era it was directed from. This is all in saying Twilight even compares to the story of Dracula. Dracula actually at times portrays a mystic tale that is somewhat creepy. Would have been more so creepy before it was dialuted with thousands of retellings.


----------

