Dracula is pretty much known as the grandfather of vampire literature, and I was really excited to read it for my Victorian lit class. Sadly, however, it failed to appeal to me. Stoker badly needed an editor: there were distracting narrative inconsistencies all over the place. The characters seemed archetypal, but not in a good way. The women in the story were either highly sexualized or disturbingly victimized, an anti-New Woman novel if there ever was one. Overall, this book was a disappointment for me. ( )

Introducing one of English literature’s most infamous characters, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a feast of a novel that delights both those with a taste for horror, and those without. While modern readers will recognize much of the Count that they have come to know through popular culture, the original novel holds much more than suave aristocrats and women in negligees.

The epistolary form of the novel – which comes into vogue in the 18th-century – allows Stoker to create a sense of suspense and complexity as he navigates several different narratives that prove essential to the successful relation of his vampire story. Although modern films have simplified the narrative to fit their own format, Dracula would not be the novel it is without the myriad of voices that Stoker utilizes to establish his story, and would certainly lose much of its power and seduction if left to a singular narrator.

When reading Dracula for analysis (as oppose to personal pleasure) it is important to remember that Stoker's work is actually a fairly late addition to the evolving body of English vampire literature. Authors such as Keats, Coleridge, Byron, Polidori, and Le Fanu all raise their voices to contribute to the emerging rendition of an ancient figure, and have their influence in Stoker's creation of his iconic Count. What Stoker does is not create the vampire myth - nor the English vampire story - but rather uses it to very 19th-century English ends.

In the wide scope of Gothic monsters, the vampire is one of the more recent members. While witches haunt medieval manuscripts and werewolves stalk Renaissance dramas, the vampire does not appear in English literature until relatively late.* Stoker himself is responsible for many characteristics that have now become standard for the modern vampire figure, and contemporary authors and artists owe much to Stoker’s conception. What I find most interesting, however, is how Stoker himself manipulates the standards of his time to give life to the character that has so permeated public consciousness. Dracula moves beyond the traditions of horror and Gothic and becomes a piece of social commentary and exploration that contains radical examinations of gender, sexuality, and reproduction. Under the guise of Gothic, Stoker is allowed the freedom to challenge traditional roles established by Victorian society, and pushes against traditional institutions under the cloak of "horror".

Dracula has earned its place in the English canon, and remains an important and influential work of literature that is sure to delight readers for centuries to come.

*According to Montague Summers, demonic creatures that possess certain characteristics attributed to vampires by modern audiences can in fact be found in manuscripts as early as the 14th century, but these distinctions and identifications are all made several centuries after their original composition. ( )

I just love this book. Everything about it, really. I love the story and I love how it's told. I do understand why some people think it's repetitive at times - but as for myself I wouldn't change a word; it is enthralling all the way through. ( )

Everyone knows the basic story here, but the writing is truly wonderful, and a pleasure to read. Bram Stoker sure knows how to spin a tale. ( )

The most boring book ever. The same things happen over and over and over and over...well you get it. ( )