|
Post by novastar6 on Oct 1, 2017 13:42:42 GMT
Have you read it? Have you re-read it?
I tried to read it once when I was 13, only got through the first 5 chapters, tried again I think when I was 15, got through it all, barely remember any of it. Tried to re-read it again last year for Halloween, only got halfway through. Trying again, averaging about 1 chapter per day.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 1, 2017 14:58:27 GMT
I was also around that age when I tried to read Dracula, and I don't think I got past Chapter 2. Never did try to read it again, but maybe I ought to give it another shot.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Oct 1, 2017 15:56:14 GMT
Not an easy read. I've read it twice and the journal, diary and log entries can be confusing as well as Stoker's use of the language in the time frame it was written. And the character "Dracula" in the novel is somewhat different to the one we have all come to perceive through portrayals on film. I greatly appreciate it as a wonderful piece of literature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 3:29:02 GMT
I have read it a few times. Best vampire novel I have read, all due respect to 'Salem's Lot. It has never been properly adapted. A few good ones but the definitive Dracula movie has yet to be made. A true masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Oct 3, 2017 4:07:47 GMT
Picked up a copy when I was about 14 or so, and I read it in 2 sittings. Tried it again when I was in college, but I think my brain was too fried from it being the week after Finals, and I couldn't get past chapter 3. A couple years after college, I found my old copy and I think I read it in one sitting. Sometimes it can be as much what all else is going on or what kind of mood you're in, as the book. I've never been able to read LAST OF THE MOHECANS without some sort of incentive (such as, "The review on this book is due in class on Thursday, and today is Monday"), and DUNE I read in four or five days the first time, but couldn't stand it the second or third times I tried reading it, while I was on vacation.
PS: I can't remember, for the life of me, what the title was. But there was a book that came out in the early 90s, and it was a "sort of sequel" to DRACULA, done in the same style, but with a leading character who was female and was supposed to exist in late-Victorian New York, dealing with a newly arrived Count Dracula of Transylvania by way of London. I remember reading it when it came out and it was done exactly like DRACULA. Diary entries, newspaper clippings, etc., and while it was not the best book- it was a fun read for DRACULA enthusiasts.
|
|
Bargle
Sophomore
My incredibly life-like self-portrait
@bargle
Posts: 432
Likes: 228
|
Post by Bargle on Oct 3, 2017 10:35:12 GMT
I read it back in my twenties. Enjoyed it, but feel no desire for a reread.
|
|
|
Post by darknessfish on Oct 4, 2017 8:11:09 GMT
Yeah, I've read it. I thought it was ok, it had plenty of atmosphere, but I thought the climax was dreadful. It's like he built up the narrative but had to get his English lit assignment in before the weekend, so finished the book with "and then we did chase him and catch him and kill him. The end."
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 4, 2017 19:35:00 GMT
Picked up a copy when I was about 14 or so, and I read it in 2 sittings. Tried it again when I was in college, but I think my brain was too fried from it being the week after Finals, and I couldn't get past chapter 3. A couple years after college, I found my old copy and I think I read it in one sitting. Sometimes it can be as much what all else is going on or what kind of mood you're in, as the book. I've never been able to read LAST OF THE MOHECANS without some sort of incentive (such as, "The review on this book is due in class on Thursday, and today is Monday"), and DUNE I read in four or five days the first time, but couldn't stand it the second or third times I tried reading it, while I was on vacation. PS: I can't remember, for the life of me, what the title was. But there was a book that came out in the early 90s, and it was a "sort of sequel" to DRACULA, done in the same style, but with a leading character who was female and was supposed to exist in late-Victorian New York, dealing with a newly arrived Count Dracula of Transylvania by way of London. I remember reading it when it came out and it was done exactly like DRACULA. Diary entries, newspaper clippings, etc., and while it was not the best book- it was a fun read for DRACULA enthusiasts. By any chance-- Dracula the Undead (1997), by Freda Warrington? Haven't yet found out if it were set in New York, but everything else fits... (Not to be confused with the similarly-titled Dracula the Un-dead [2009], which got tons of publicity because one of the co-authors was Stoker's great-grand-nephew.)
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Oct 5, 2017 17:20:42 GMT
Picked up a copy when I was about 14 or so, and I read it in 2 sittings. Tried it again when I was in college, but I think my brain was too fried from it being the week after Finals, and I couldn't get past chapter 3. A couple years after college, I found my old copy and I think I read it in one sitting. Sometimes it can be as much what all else is going on or what kind of mood you're in, as the book. I've never been able to read LAST OF THE MOHECANS without some sort of incentive (such as, "The review on this book is due in class on Thursday, and today is Monday"), and DUNE I read in four or five days the first time, but couldn't stand it the second or third times I tried reading it, while I was on vacation. PS: I can't remember, for the life of me, what the title was. But there was a book that came out in the early 90s, and it was a "sort of sequel" to DRACULA, done in the same style, but with a leading character who was female and was supposed to exist in late-Victorian New York, dealing with a newly arrived Count Dracula of Transylvania by way of London. I remember reading it when it came out and it was done exactly like DRACULA. Diary entries, newspaper clippings, etc., and while it was not the best book- it was a fun read for DRACULA enthusiasts. By any chance-- Dracula the Undead (1997), by Freda Warrington? Haven't yet found out if it were set in New York, but everything else fits... (Not to be confused with the similarly-titled Dracula the Un-dead [2009], which got tons of publicity because one of the co-authors was Stoker's great-grand-nephew.) I wish I knew where my copy was or could remember the title/author, but that could be it? I mean, I think I read it in about '91-'93, but I got my nieces age wrong by 4 years yesterday, so I am not the most reliable when it comes to remember what year something happened.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Oct 8, 2017 15:39:32 GMT
I read it some years ago and was surprised how much I enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Oct 16, 2017 3:46:24 GMT
25 pages to the end, and there are a couple of things I haven't been able to figure out, maybe it's just Van Helsing's broken English, but doe anybody know why (SPOILERS)
vampires can't cross over running water? and towards the end, does he actually say that Dracula is up and moving about on the ship during the daytime, the hours when he's supposed to be semi-powerless in his coffin?
Also, does ANYBODY understand why all those kids Lucy bit called her the 'bloofer lady'?
|
|
|
Dracula
Oct 16, 2017 6:53:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by hi224 on Oct 16, 2017 6:53:40 GMT
Favorite scene of the book anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 18, 2017 0:28:41 GMT
25 pages to the end, and there are a couple of things I haven't been able to figure out, maybe it's just Van Helsing's broken English, but doe anybody know why (SPOILERS) vampires can't cross over running water? and towards the end, does he actually say that Dracula is up and moving about on the ship during the daytime, the hours when he's supposed to be semi-powerless in his coffin? Also, does ANYBODY understand why all those kids Lucy bit called her the 'bloofer lady'? Hi, Novastar6-- To answer these in reverse order: "Bloofer" here is supposed to be a transliteration of beautiful in a Cockney dialect. As for "running water," yes, that's an old legend--though, if I remember correctly, it first applied to ghosts, not to vampires. I suppose Stoker extended it to revenants of any kind, as, yes, it has long been part of the vampire myth. Stoker makes a point of stating that Dracula is able to move around during the day, in contradistinction to later vampire tales. Thus the scene where he lets the wolf out of the zoo and where Jonathan sees him walking through London. The "cannot go out in the daytime" part of the story was only added later, though not far removed from Drac himself (as Stoker writes that the Count's powers are weakened in the daytime). Hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Oct 18, 2017 3:41:36 GMT
25 pages to the end, and there are a couple of things I haven't been able to figure out, maybe it's just Van Helsing's broken English, but doe anybody know why (SPOILERS) vampires can't cross over running water? and towards the end, does he actually say that Dracula is up and moving about on the ship during the daytime, the hours when he's supposed to be semi-powerless in his coffin? Also, does ANYBODY understand why all those kids Lucy bit called her the 'bloofer lady'? Hi, Novastar6-- To answer these in reverse order: "Bloofer" here is supposed to be a transliteration of beautiful in a Cockney dialect. As for "running water," yes, that's an old legend--though, if I remember correctly, it first applied to ghosts, not to vampires. I suppose Stoker extended it to revenants of any kind, as, yes, it has long been part of the vampire myth. Stoker makes a point of stating that Dracula is able to move around during the day, in contradistinction to later vampire tales. Thus the scene where he lets the wolf out of the zoo and where Jonathan sees him walking through London. The "cannot go out in the daytime" part of the story was only added later, though not far removed from Drac himself (as Stoker writes that the Count's powers are weakened in the daytime). Hope that helps! Weakened, but not helpless, which would explain how even in his coffin, not moving, he was able to control Harker's mind to only gash his forehead with a shovel instead of cutting his head off. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|