Dracula

[sara frances]

I'm not even 100 pages in and I am already freaked out!

>.>

/sleeps with lights on

[Dini, the master of meaning]

LOL Seems like the Dracula is doing a good job then, Franny ;)

I just started this book and I'm more thrilled and excited than scared, but that's probably because I've watched the parody movie with Leslie Nielsen.

[Joanie]

I'm reading this and listening to the audio book, I'm about halfway through. The audio book is sooo good, it definitely adds a lot to the story. The guy who played Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility does the male parts and he does a great job with Van Helsing and Dracula's accent. I love it!

[[deleted user]]

I read Dracula a couple of months ago but I don't remember at all being scared.
Weird. Maybe that is because I am an avid King reader and because I love everything labeled "horror" in general. The last book that was actually able to freak me out was something by Dean Koontz.. I guess it was The Funhouse.
Still, I liked Dracula.. I am looking forward to the actual discussion to start : )

[sara frances]

I could never read a King novel. I wouldn't sleep for nights. I think I just have a way over-active imagination and can't handle anything slightly freaky. I refuse to see scary movies. I HAD to watch the Exorcist for a film class and I honestly slept with the lights on for almost a week. I was scared of my staircase for another week.

However, I enjoy reading enough that I'm going to push through with Dracula. I am already caught up in the story line.

[Angie]

I love Dracula, this is one of my all time favorite books. I love how the story has several narrators makes it more interesting.

[Kathryn]

Franny, you sound like your tolerance level for horror is right there with mine!!! With "10" being "sleeping with likes on for a week" how scary are you finding "Dracula"? Also, is it sad like "Frankenstein"? I'm reluctant to read "Dracula" as it sounds scary, and "Frankenstein" as it sounds really sad.

[Angie]

I didn't find Dracula scary, but I try to think of the time it was published. I bet back then it was terrifying for people because their tolerance of horror was different then now.

[Kristel]

Dracula scares me to. I have to much imagination for this type of book. Never would have guessed that it was written so compelling. I need to read further, scared as I am...

[[deleted user]]

I actually am a very jumpy and overimaginative type, too, but you can really train your horror tolerance. I can still remember how I red my first R. L. Stime book at the age of 7 or 8 in brightest sunlight and I was just SO scared. But it does get better the more horror books you read. With movies, it is even easier for me because my imagination is a lot worse than the pictures on screen. I also tend to get really bad nightmares, all out of nothing (even if I don't read anything scary at all). Unfortunately, I have not found a remedy for that yet ; )

[sara frances]

Kathryn-

So far, being over a hundred pages in, there are only a few parts that really creep me out and give the the heebie jeebies. However the whole book does have a very eerie tone and feel to it. But as Kristel said, it is a very compelling book. I can't put it down. I slept with a nightlight on last night (Yes, I am nearly 22 years old and still have one!) and if I continue to read this before bed, I'll probably have the nightlight on to help me fall asleep.

Overall, I think I'd put it at about a 4, maybe a 3 and 1/2, on the scare level, but so far I think it's totally worth it.

I have never read Frankenstein so I have no idea how it compares.

[Kathryn]

Thanks, y'all! :-) I appreciate your insights.

[sara frances]

No problem, fellow chicken! ;D

Have you decided if you're going to read it?

[S]

I finished reading Dracula about a month ago. It wasn't a typical book I would normally read, but I was looking for something different than what was on my bookshelf already. I think those of you reading it now will enjoy it! I know I did. It was actually better than I thought it would be. The only part that bothered me about this book is when Van Helsing starts narrating. His English can be too confusing at times.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

I agree, Sarah. I'm not a big fan of dialects written out like that. It slows me down for one. Secondly, I feel like I miss out on the story because I can't figure out what the person is saying.

"How scary is Dracula?" seems to be the "talking" point here. Hmmm. I'm about halfway done. For me, it's not consistently scary. I mean, you'll be reading along for a few pages, trying to keep up with the story, then all of a sudden, there's some wolf face in the window here, or some dark figure hovering over someone there. I agree with whoever said they were "creeped out" by parts and that some parts gave them the "heebie jeebies." Good descriptions. Not constantly scary, but jabbing you with these gross-out, gothic images every once in a while.

So far, I'm enjoying the story and the narrative devices (the letters, newspapers, journals), but it's still kind of slow-going for me.

I didn't think Frankenstein was scary at all. I mean, there were a few disturbing parts, but not necessarily spine-tingling. The scariest books for me are true-crime stuff, i.e. Mystic River. Those are the books that make me want to sleep with the lights on.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

Alison, I also feel the story is going slow especially in the part of Lucy's illness. It's obvious Van Helsing knows something, and his not telling everyone else about it is kind of making me impatient.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

The long drawn out detail-oriented writing is frustrating me a bit. Or maybe I'm just of the MTV generation that wants everything to be quick and action-packed......

[[deleted user]]

Alison, I know what you mean by saying that the detail-oriented writing is frustrating you a bit. As much as I can enjoy that slow writing style of the 18th and 19th (especially 19th and Romanticism) century, as much can I find it annoying. Most recently I guess I have read too much of that sort (Frankenstein, Sense and Sensibility, Emma and also a couple of German classics for my German lit class) so I just can't stand it at the moment. I need to get some modern stuff in my reading diet to be able to appreciate the details again.

[Dottie]

Marion -- that totally makes sense to me. I find the same thing happens with me and sometimes it's a matter of switching entirely out of fiction or whatever genre into another -- non-fiction or light mystery. Which is how I broke my stalled reading of Frankenstein just now -- I took time to read a new to me book in a favorite mystery series of mine, China Bayles herbal mysteries by Susan Wittig Albert. It was exactly the right move and since then I've not only begun a biography but am racing toward the finish of Frankenstein.

[Joanie]

I finished over the weekend. I liked it but it definitely dragged in parts and I had to keep pushing myself to keep going. I didn't find it scary per se but agree that parts were creepy. I'm sure it raised quite a scandal in it's time though. It's funny to think that most of what now read/watch etc about vampires originated with Stoker-it's a pretty cool legacy to leave behind.

[Kristel]

I still haven't finished the entire book, but I think it's fascinating in a way that a lot of the concept vampire was originated in this novel. Sometimes I want to scream to the characters: "Can't you tell, it's a vampire, Count Dracula isn't just old, he's a vampire! Quickly get some holy water, crucifixes and some garlic."

I must say I agree on the comments about the use of dialect. It was difficult for me to understand, I'm reading Dracula in English, not in Dutch, but I can imagine that the Dutch translation has dialect use in it as well.

But still, Bram Stokers novel surprised me. I think it's well written. I should have read it a long time ago...a professor in literature at university did tell us that Stokers novel was worthwhile reading, perhaps should have listened. Anyhow, I'm reading it now :)

I do have to admit that I agree on reading to much period novels. I remember that sometime ago I had to put "Shirly" by Charlotte Brönthe away, because I thought it was to slow and to elaborately written. I started it when I just had finished Mark Haddons "the curious incident of a dog...", so obviously that was to big of a turn probably to start reading something 19th Century after a contemporary novel...

[Angie]

I can't tell, but it seems the consensus is that people really didn't like the book? Or maybe it wasn't what they expected? It has been a while since I read it and I have so many books to read this month that I won't be able to read it with the group but I don't remember noticing the writing.

In Denver every October the ballet puts on Dracula. It is a wonderful ballet and the first time I saw it I hadn't read the book yet and was still able to follow. Very good show if you are in the area.

Spoiler:
I remember that the men giving their blood really affected me. I thought it was crazy, it sounded so painful.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

Angie, I don't know who you mean by the "people" who didn't like the book. Were you referring to the majority of reviews here in Goodreads?

I myself am quite enjoying the book, although I do agree that the story dragged in parts. I've got less than 100 pages to go and can't wait to see what happens next. Bring on the action, Stoker!

SPOILER


When the men were giving blood all I can think of is what if they have different blood types? Don't they need to check it first? ;P

[Kristel]

SPOILER
Dini, That puzzled me too, what about the blood type? The surely couldn't all have O-negative? They probably didn't even know how to check, can't a person die because of the wrong blood? Strange...

And for god's sake: keep the garlic in Lucy's room. All those men running out of blood and out of sleep...

Angie, I do agree that it was quite moving that the men volunteered so generously to give their blood.

I quite enjoy the book as well, but it drags on a bit.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

LOL Kristel, that's what I want to shout at them: Oy, don't move the garlic, people! ;)

[Angie]

Dini maybe I just got the impression since everyone was talking about it not being scary. I probably read into it wrong.

[Katri]

Jumping into the discussion though it's been a while since I read Dracula, but I love the book (even if I agree it drags in parts).

Anyway, to add to what was being discussed in the past few messages (SPOILER ALERT!):

I once did some research for a vampire novel I've been writing and found out that science only found out about different blood types a few years after Dracula was written, I think in 1901 or something. So at the time of the events it wasn't known, and Stoker wouldn't have known that was significant. Though of course someone like Van Helsing must have known that sometimes transfusions work and sometimes they don't, but he must have figured that since it's the only chance of saving her life, they must try because she'll die anyway if they don't. Well, maybe Lucy happened to be AB+ and could receive any blood type, or they otherwise were all compatible with her.

[sara frances]

ooo, that all makes sense now. Thanks for the info, Katri! =)

[Katri]

You're welcome - I thought it might be helpful to share that info, it wasn't evident for me either!

A bit more of my thoughts on the book Dracula itself (non-spoilery). It's been two or three years since I read it, and I would like to reread it but sadly don't have time now. However, like I said, I loved it. It's a bit outdated in style and all, but I love 19th century novels so it's all right for me. Like others, I found it creepy but not exactly scary. But that's just good, because I have a low tolerance for scary. I think R.L. Stine horror books were as far as I ever made it and those scared me out of my wits, too! My imagination is a bit too vivid.

But like someone said, in late 19th century people had a different mentality with regards to horror books. They hadn't read so many of them, and certainly not as scary as the horror books we've got nowadays; and then also back then science wasn't so advanced so people didn't really know what might exist. Science was all the time discovering things that hadn't been thought possible, and myths still influenced people's minds more than they do nowadays. So who knew, perhaps blood-sucking vampires did indeed exist...

As someone who adores letters and journal entries, whether real or fictional, I absolutely love the format this book is in. And the book is beautifully written and full of all sorts of things that are fun to analyze and scourge for subtext - there's plenty of potential for all that, certainly!

[Alison, the guru of grace]

SPOILER, SOMEWHAT...

I, too, could sum up my feelings on Dracula by saying that even though it is dragging to me, I still like it. I just got to one nasty/gory scene though...Mina & Dracula...when the others bust into her room. Yuk! Could have lived without that!

This novel is SO Goth...the rats, the wolves, the blood...the mist...Dracula--dressed in all black.

I did not think about the blood type! Yes, surely Lucy would have died if she'd gotten the wrong type. There is one "universal recipient" type--O positive?

[Jessica]

So I am now on chapter VI and I had to stop because it was really good then I read the letters and was completely board! I know it will come in later why we had to read their letters, but my goodness its slow!

[Dottie]

Well, here goes -- reading the second book this month -- a classic, an oft listed suggested reading for school classes -- but never read it! You ladies are getting me to rectify my lax habits and engage in proper studious behavior. Or I suppose it is really to Rory's credit this should be charged. I am naturally way behind on Dracula but even with only the first chapter down, I'm already finding it entertaining.

[Shaindel]

YAY! My first Master's thesis was on Dracula! (and Stoker's novel, The Snake's Pass, as two different interpretations of the Irish Land War)...

If you need help, let me know. I even taught it last quarter in Brit Lit, so I'm all brushed up on it again.

YAY!
S

[Shaindel]

They didn't know about blood types then... And this gets to be quite "interesting" at the end of the novel... You'll see :-)

It's also supposed to seem incestuous and creepy to us that all of their blood is in Lucy b/c that would have seemed like "being married" to them. Think of John Donne's great seduction poem "The Flea" where he tries to seduce the woman by saying that the flea has bitten him and then bit her, so they are already married...

~S

[Shaindel]

Okay, the thing is Lucy's mother moves the garlic b/c she subconsciously wants to do Lucy in... That "sleep-walking" that Lucy did when she was younger and that her father did when he was alive. Hint, hint... Think about it. (If you're still not catching on, many men who molest their daughters still claim to have been sleepwalking and not knowing what they were doing.)

You're allowed to disagree with me, but that's one of the interpretations I was taught in graduate school and still consider valid enough to teach to my students.

[Shaindel]

Actually, Dracula is the first "modern" novel. It's the first novel to feature the use of--a typewriter, a phonograph, and blood transfusions.

There might be something else I'm leaving out, but I'm not sure...

Wow...here I was going to let you all ask me for advice, but apparently, being a Dracula expert, I couldn't wait. Sorry!

[Erin]

I'm right there with you Dottie - just going to get started today!

[Deborah]

I really enjoyed reading Dracula this time around. I initially read it so long ago that I didn't remember much about it. I prefer Stoker's writing style to Shelley's, after Frankenstein, this seemed positively fast-paced! It didn't seem as much scary to me as thrilling, especially when they went after the Count in Transylvania.

I have a very high horror tolerance, can read Stephen King before bed. I'm a lot more frightened of a certain vice-presidential candidate!

I actually like Van Helsing's dialect. It adds some comic relief and is kind of endearing.

But my favorite character is feisty Mina! How refreshing to find a female character in a nineteenth century novel who is other than a complete victim.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

I finished the book last week. I agree, Deborah -- it's great that Mina is smart and although the men didn't want her involved in the "action" in order to protect her, they (especially Van Helsing) appreciate her cleverness in helping them.

I like the journal writing style, but to me the characters that don't write (Arthur and Quincey) seem less vividly represented in my mind--because I don't get to see things through their head. An exception is Van Helsing, cause although he doesn't write anything until the very end of the novel, others' descriptions of him are strong enough to make him a prominent figure in the storyline. Art & Quincey, on the other hand, are described as little more than rich, young adventurers who loved Lucy.

I wonder, though, how they all found time to write journals amid all the things that are going on!

Shaindel, I don't know... Lucy's mother subconsciously wanting to "do her in" seems like reading too much into things. Isn't it possible that her mother was simply ignorant of the garlic's function and didn't like the smell in Lucy's room? Even Dr Seward, who was schooled by Van Helsing, didn't know what the garlic was for.

[Katri]

I also like it that Mina is actually intelligent and brave, and has much more personality than most heroines in 19th century novels written by men!

I'm with Dini, I personally find that interpretation about Lucy's mother a bit far-fetched... I think the implication was just that she didn't understand it and so undid the protection without realising it. (It's a very common theme, I think, well-meaning but ignorant people accidentially helping evil to happen, and chance working against the heroes' intentions.) I mean, it's possible to read that interpretation into it if you want, but I don't think it's a very obvious conclusion. Especially when Lucy's parents are not otherwise important in the story, so I'm not sure that speculating about their motives and personal history is a very big key to the novel or anything.

I'm not exactly a Dracula expert, but I have a friend who's studied the novel quite a lot, as well as interpretations that literary analysts have made of this novel, and I've concluded that about Dracula, every single possible interpretation has been made, as well as a great deal of impossible ones. So just because an interpretation can be made and has been taught in a literature class, I wouldn't automatically consider it a very authoritative interpretation.

Among the theories that my friend ran into was that, extending that significance-of-blood-thing, the four men were actually engaging in a homosexual act with each other by all donating their blood to Lucy*; and somebody comparing Dracula to yeast because he functions in secret, unseen. To be honest, I should read a bit more about literature analysis of Dracula, it seems enormously entertaining. ;)

I hope I'm not offensive in the previous paragraphs, it's not my meaning. I've just concluded it's best to take all literary analysis with a grain of salt, because so many interpretations have been made that it's not possible to believe all of these interpretations at once! That being said, analysing it and throwing all those interpretations around is still great fun. :)

*Now, I've nothing against finding homosexual subtext in Dracula. There's lots. And who knows, maybe with the Victorians' view of blood there really was that level of meaning. But that was not really the first place where I would have gone for looking for homosexual subtext!

[Angie]

The neat thing I learned from Dracula was what exactly is a phonograph. I myself had not heard of it before and loved learning about it.

[Jessica]

Reading this really makes me want to start writing in a diary... :-)

[Dottie]

Jessica -- the journal, letter, etc. form is very appealing -- at least I am finding that to be true.

What I cannot figure out for the life of me is why I avoided reading this and Frankenstein as well all my lifetime of reading. I think it came from seeing the films which have, as it turns out, little resemblance to the actual stories. But I knew books were usually better than films when it came to other books, why did I not make that connection with these particular books? Very strange.

I am just at the point where they are beginning the transfusions and the garlic has been placed about the room.

Every reference to Renfield - I see Arte Johnson -- too funny.

[Angie]

I actually avoided reading Dracula as well. My reason though is I thought the book was going to be so scary. Turns out it isn't scary in the modern sense. I also blame it on movies and the modern look of Dracula.

[Joanie]

Funny about the homosexual subtext-I wouldn't have picked up on that but I did read quite a bit about Victorian attitudes towards sexuality and morality in relation to the book.

I read something that said that when Jonathan is in the study and one of the three "brides" approached him on her knees it's intended to evoke images of oral sex.

Another thing said I read was how Stoker kept Mina pure throughout the novel, never talking about her marraige to Jonathan in physical terms and how contrary that is to Lucy turning into the wanton seductress. I remember in the movie they have Lucy panting with her chest heaving etc. Funny.

I can't say I intentionally avoided reading Dracuala, it's more that it never occurred to me. I had always assumed it would be dated and I wouldn't enjoy it.

[Kristel]

I had to take some literature classes at university. I kind of agree with Katri on reading to much into it. But Shaindel, no offense or anything, I thought your comments very insightful, subtext does often appear with re-reading and with insight into the timeperiod in which a novel is written. I am an arthistorian, so it's kind of a thing of my study field as well reading a lot into things. I always wonder if we don't read to much into things, I mean a book like a painting can be interpreted in many ways and on many levels, but there's always the question: was the author/artist aware of all the subtext and layers or not? Was it intentionally or do we, with our knowledge of history and analysis really want books/paintings to have that many layers?

I am going a bit of topic here and I don't know if it makes sense what I am trying to say...

Dracula is a splendid novel, the blood and bonding because of the blood (Arthurs speech about him sort of being married to Lucy because of the blood thing, the other men keeping silent about their part in it...), the Victorian view on sexuality, I think it's all very interesting. It makes me want to learn more about the Victorian mentality.

[Jessica]

Dottie I agree! I thought it was so appealing that I started a new journal just yesterday!

I wish I would have read this book earlier. I know every Halloween I would think about reading it but never really did.

[Dini, the master of meaning]

I get what you mean, Kristel. We don't really know whether authors intended to put meaning to everything down to the little things. Makes us wonder whether sometimes we are overanalyzing stuff.

[Shaindel]

I'm a big believer in that we don't know our subconsciouses... I'm sure that I write things, not thinking about double entendres, etc., and they're there...

And we have to have theories or literary theorists would have no jobs, right? :-)

[Katri]

I do think all that talk about subtextual meanings and whether the author means them or not is very interesting, Kristel and Shaindel. And there definitely is a lot of subtext of all kinds of be found in Dracula, and I think it's great to throw around ideas of what different events could mean. I just would be wary of saying that some event definitely means this or that, because it is a question of interpretation, and very many interpretations have been made of Dracula, some quite far out there...

I mostly read some homosexual subtext into the Jonathan and Dracula scenes, though I don't remember anymore what made me think that. But apparently literary theorists have often seen Dracula as being bisexual. I also read in some introduction to Dracula that Stoker was himself bisexual but in denial about it, and that's why he tried to very much to create characters who corresponded to traditional gender roles, to cover his desire to explore anything else. Then again, that didn't exactly work out because Mina is much tougher and smarter than heroines of most 19th century fiction, at least fiction written by men.

Oh, nobody get me started on Coppola's movie and its treatment of Lucy. I hated that movie with a burning passion (no offence to anyone who liked it), and one of the big reasons was how they'd totally ruined Lucy's character. She was a kind of a, hmm, how to say it politely, wanton woman from the start, which meant that her transformation wasn't at all interesting - just add pointy teeth, nothing else really changes. In book I find it fascinating how she goes from a sweet, innocent, virtuous girl into this wanton, bloodlusty she-devil. I do see a lot of subtext in Lucy's character of how under that pure and sweet surface, there is something much darker and less "pure and proper" and then Dracula pulls that out, and I understand how it may need to be made more explicit for a modern viewer. But Coppola just destroyed everything interesting about the character and made her so ridiculous that nobody could possibly care what happened to her. That's how I and my friends felt about it, at least.

In terms of modern interpretations, I'm fond of what Frank Wildhorn's Dracula musical does with the character, having her be a rather innocent, playful sweetheart at first but then the encounters with Dracula bringing out the side of her that wants something more passionate and darker, and so makes her succumb to Dracula. I otherwise have some reservations with the Wildhorn musical's interpretations of the characters, but he clearly saw Lucy the same way I do.