Topic: I never really understood why Bram Stoker's Dracula is so popular...

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I read through Stoker's Dracula a couple times, trying to get why it was so popular.

The various viewpoints are an interesting trick, but they made it difficult for me to follow the story at times, and they broke the pacing of the story a few times as well.

The story was okay. But only okay. I can't say I grew attached to any of the characters, and the story lost it's thrill the further I got in.

If I had written it, I would have put Dracula's death at the start, and then show how it all built up to that, seeing as Dracula's actual death in the novel is actually one of the more boring parts.

I frequently hold "Carmilla" to be the better written story. For me, it's more suspenseful, more tightly written, and has characters I actually grow attached to, especially Carmilla herself.

In any case, I would like to know what those who find Dracula appealing find so appealing about it. Go on. Share all!

[beingthehero]

I think people approach it by expecting it to be as, I dunno, visual as the movies? Rather than being made up mostly of letters, I mean, instead of action. Like Frankenstein, it's definitely surprising to read if you're only familiar with the films.

On the other hand, the Coppola version of Bram Stoker's Dracula is good, if only for Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. Both completely chew up the scenery so well.

[crisis]

Bram Stoker's dracula rehearsal clip





w-waitaminute

who's Haman Karn??

[uzo]

who's Haman Karn??

Haman Karn is the leader of the Neo-Zeon movement.

[X]

I think the reason why so many find Bram Stoker's Dracula a success was because it thrust Vampires into the spotlight not long after it was writing (after Bram Stoker's death I believe). There have been other stories before it ie Carmilla, etc. Many recognize this work of fiction even though it's not accurate or original as it borrowed other ideas, however it was none-the-less still a milestone in history. The book also first introduced us to Dracula; the King of Vampires who in turn was based off of a real-life historical figure; Prince Vlad Tepes Dracula. There are many more reasons as to why this book is such a literary masterpiece of fiction meshed with reality and folklore, though for now this is about as much as I can dish out. But I can say this; Without Bram Stoker's Dracula, Castlevania as we know it would not exist, let alone exist at all. And I'm thankful for it 

[Mooning Freddy]

Dracula is a great novel. One of the things that makes it so great is that it was written in the golden period of English adventure/thriller/mystery literature, which gave rise to great writers such as Conan Doyle, R.L. Stevenson, and H. Rider Haggard.

The thing about Dracula is that it's a hard book to read. The main plot develops VERY slowly, and the idea of writing it thorough diaries seems quite strange at first, until you reach the point where you finally see the connection between them; And that point is around 150 pages into the story, which is quite tiresome for the (modern?) reader.
The thing I found most frustrating is that the first part of the book (Jonathan Harker's diary) is written fantastically. It's weird, quite creepy, the character of Count Dracula is described in a magnificent manner, and you can really feel Jonathan's fear as he realizes that he's trapped in Dracula's castle.
But then the story switches to Lucy and Mina for, like, a hundred pages, and I want to yell "what the hell, Bram? Don't give me this romantic bullshit, I wanna know what happened to Jonathan!"

Until you realize the connection between the various characters, you're already halfway into the book. Until that point, the book is confusing and inconsistent. When you reach the main plot, it really gets much more interesting, but you're still wondering, why such a long introduction? Of course this is intentional and important to create tension, but if you don't consider that the book was written a hundred years ago, when readers liked that kind of tension in literature, you really get tired on reading it.

Well, it all sounds like criticism of the novel, but I must say I really like it. It has some great quotes and I like the structure of it since it is so original. One of my favorite quotes is Dracula's shameless scorn of the Russian and Austrian royal dynasties:

Ah, young sir, the Szekelys, and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords, can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach.

[JR]

I think the one thing that made my interest wane at parts were the lengthy conversations between Van Helsing and the other characters. They were long-winded by today's standards and I guess I wasn't used to that. Nothing major, though. One thing that did kind of amuse me was how the characters would profusely apologize in advance if they thought that their words even had the teeny-tiniest chance of offending the person they were talking to. Very, very, very polite, those guys. :p

But yeah, I definitely think that Harker's visit to Dracula's castle was the highlight of the book.

[CastleToastM]

I found that Dracula had a rather abrupt ending. But then again, I'm more used to books where they explain what happened to the characters, where they go, what they do, ect.

[TheouAegis]

I think the problem is you already know the story. Try to read books not knowing what they're about, as though you were living at the same time period.

[X]

I found that Dracula had a rather abrupt ending. But then again, I'm more used to books where they explain what happened to the characters, where they go, what they do, ect.

If you want the answers to these questions then I suggest you go read the novel Dracula: The Undead by Dacre Stoker & Ian Holt. This book is the official sequel to the original Bram Stoker book and has a multitude of interesting themes and characters in it. The Novel is officially recognized by the Bram Stoker foundation as they also contributed to the writing of the book. long story short, it a good read.