Your choice:
Is there something in Dracula that you're dying to discuss? Do you have lots of unanswered questions? Do you just want to vent, constructively of course? Post your suggestions, comments, and questions here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bram Stoker's Dracula is a very interesting novel. It, like many others, begins in a very slow manner, but quickly begins to intrique the reader. It is, in the end, a fairly decent book. But in all due respect towards Stoker, it also has a disturbing quality to it. I think it is most evident in the part of the three mysterious women at the Count's castle. I'm not sure I can explain my reasoning, and as you read on it becomes more understandable, but at the time, it has a chilling effect. Another is when the men hunt out Lucy Westrena. How Stoker describes her as the undead and as the Bloofer Lady, not only that but the way he makes her feed off of children, is sickening to me. I think it's because we are more reasonable to, and even anticipate, that things will happen to adults. Not so much that they will be attacked by a vampire, but that things will happen none the less. But to children we are more protective. I cringe when I think about a child being hurt in any form. I think that is what makes Dracula disturbing to me. However, in its defense, it is a good read.
ReplyDeleteAt first, Dracula was a very boring novel. The beginning chapters were really quite tedious and, in truth, I had to push myself to complete them. However, it is my opinion that Stoker uses some brilliant imagery in his novel. For example, his description of Harker's journey to the castle made me feel as if I were actually there.
ReplyDeleteThe main characters' friendship and loyalty were another thing I admired in this novel. It is amazing that Mina had such a close group of friends that were ready to die for her. And, in fact, that was the case. Quincey Morris did indeed give his life for his friend, and he made sure she was safe (page 398).
So, despite a slow beginning, Dracula did turn out to be a decent book. Stoker used his writing ability to write a book that has survived all of these years, despite numerous culture and audience changes.
I agree Alyssa - the imagery was amazing!! Give me a specific example of something you liked.
ReplyDeleteCassie - interesting points. Even though it disturbs you, you still see it as a good read. Explain this a little more. As a culture, what constitutes a good read? As an individual?
ReplyDeleteMrs. Matysak- Explaining a good read as a culture is difficult. Everyone is different and we all have our own taste in books. But I think for the majority of it, we expect a little of everything: romance, mystery, action, horror, ect. I think that's what made Dracula a good novel, despite all the other more morbid parts. Another aspect of it for me was the time era. I love the victorian age. The living and civility is entrancing to me. But I perfer books that are a little more calm, such as Jane Austen's books and even Elizabeth Aston's (though she is a modern writer, her books are placed in that era).
ReplyDeleteMrs. Matysak- I really liked the imagery of Harker's trip to the castle (pages 16 and 17). It was around midnight, and wolves were howling. The wind increased during the trip. Harker saw "a flickering blue light." This imagery made me feel that I was actually on the journey with Harker, feeling, hearing, and seeing the same things he did.
ReplyDeleteGreat reponses ladies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa. The imagery that Bram Stoker used made you feel like you were living through what was happening in the book. However, sometimes the descriptions were a little to much for me. I often found myself losing focus on what I was reading and I constantly had to re-read paragraphs. It wasn't often, but at times the descriptions really made me lose interest. When Stoker used excessive detail I wouldn't be able to pay attention. I was interested in the story plot and I wanted to know what happened next, but when I had to read through a load of imagery before I could find out what happened I would lose my concentration on the book. Like I said though, it didn't happen often and the majority of the time the imagery was stunning and I believe its what made the book so unforgettable.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the imagery and descriptions of the settings in Dracula helped me better understand the book. Although it was somtimes hard to pay attention, I found that while reading I could picture everything in my mind like it was actually happening to me. Even when it seemed the descriptions dragged on, I could not stop reading because the suspense of wondering when they would finally kill Dracula kept me reading through. That's what I admire about Bram's writing. He puts in so much detail and even though most people don't like a lot of description you can't help but keep reading because it all adds up to a bigger picture. It made reading Dracula very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAt first the book was a bit slow. But after the first few pages I couldn't put it down. I read practically straight through it. Except for the last forty pages which I put off until the other day. I read this book mostly during the hours I should have been sleeping. But I think that this made the book all the more interesting. It was dark and everyone else was sleeping so it really felt like I was alone, which I believe added an eerie quality to the book that otherwise may not have been there had I read it in daylight. Some parts of the book that I thought were especially interesting were all of the things that happened with Dr. Seward's insane patient. To me his role in the story is quite large. He interests me greatly because at first I despised him and he grossed me out quite a bit. But because of Stoker's depiction of this character was so strange, it made it so much more interesting. Whenever I would read about him, the strange things he did never ceased to surprise me. (140) Such as how he ate flies and spiders and other things. Then later I really pitied him because it was almost as if he did terrible things because he was insane, but really wanted just a normal existence. The author gave readers enough suspense and horror without it being overwhelming. I really quite enjoyed reading the book and most importantly I was satisfied with the ending, which I thought Stoker did a great job of writing.
ReplyDeleteThe part with Renfield, at the insane asylum, I do not understand how that ties together with the story. I understand he is a zoophagous and that means life eating, and vampires suck the life out of people. It came up randomly was one of the most interesting parts to read, with how it started with feeding flies to a spider, than many spiders to one bird, and then wanted a cat. However, Dracula and Vampires do not devour the whole human, only the blood so I cannot understand how this reflects any part of the story Dracula.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't understand how Dr. Seward's zoophagous patient, Renfield, became as sane as he did over a one night period. I know that all of his actions were sewn together with the Count, but at the moment he peaked sanity, the Count had still been undergoing his nightly actions of sucking people's blood. So I take it that perhaps when the Count killed Renfield, he was releasing him from his services.
ReplyDeleteDracula was a really neat novel. After forcing myself through what seemed to be a slow introduction, I moved rather quickly through the book. One thing I disliked while reading the novel was how Dracula told Mr. Harker that he would be leaving the castle on June 12 but in the novel the journal entries completely skip over June 12 and surrounding days, it just seems to me that Mr. Harker would have something to say in his journal about it almost being June 12 or about how he didn't leave at the expected date.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the function of Renfield? Trace his sanity/insanity.
ReplyDeleteDracula was a novel that showed one of the variety of forms of writings. I personally never read a book that was written with journal entries of the different characters. This style is very interesting and is great at showing the thoughts and personal life events of the characters in the book. This style also leaves you is suspense when the entries change from one character to the other. By the way, this was one very interesting and mind protruding novels.
ReplyDelete"The grey of the morning has passed, and the sun is high over the distant horizon, which seems jagged, whether with trees or hills I know not, for it is so far off that big things and little are mixed"[page 10] As I read through the rest of the book, this description did not leave me. It is just one of the many spectacular pieces of imagery that Bram Stoker wrote throughout this novel. His writing style was interesting. I liked how he could change the style of writing when he changed the character he was writing for. That takes talent. I would say Bram Stoker definitely has earned the right to be remembered as a classic.
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that stood out for me with Stroker's novel is the suspense I felt while reading it. Even though I knew that Dracula was a vampire, I was anxious to see how the characters would react to the revelation, and I was so engrossed with the segment on Lucy that I couldn't put it down until it was finished. Stroker's style of writing in journal entries, as well as managing to not blatantly state the obvious and keep things a secret was kept me entertained. I just wished that he didn't get so much into details about the background at times.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started Dracula I had no interest in it, but then as I finally sat down and allowed myself to get lost in the book it became extremely entertaining. I loved the set up of the book in journal entries. The layout made it easier to read and comprehend. Another thing that made the novel come to life for me was the characters. Bram Stoker created so many unique and complex characters. They all were so different, but Stoker connected them all together making you see the importance of each one.
ReplyDeleteDracula was a very unique novel. I have never seen a book that uses diary entries and letters between people to explain what is happening. It was a creative and suspenseful way to tell the story. Reading the diary entries made me feel like I was there by the way the entries were detailed. The suspense really grew when the reader had to go from person’s to person’s dairy to find out what was happening. I just wanted to get to the part where they killed Dracula. Overall, Dracula was a very detailed and suspenseful novel.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this novel. Dracula had a unique feeling to it by having multiple perspectives in a single setting or day. One thing that really intrigued me was the case of Renfield. How Dracula could affect one person by so much to give him the look of a common madman while he, in his right mind, spoke and acted like a man of sophistication. Dracula seemed to have a heavy influence on people in the novel, as with a mere glance he could hypnotize them. Reading the last 3 chapters was possibly the most suspenseful reading I've done in a long while. Seeing only a couple dozen pages left and not seeing a definite end in sight was something that kept me on edge to read each individual word. All in all, I thought Dracula met my expectations that I had for it and rose the bar a few inches.
ReplyDeleteRenfield was a very interesting character. Seward once asked him what he wants and to that he replied life. To get it he consumed the lives of small things like flies, spiders, and birds. Seward then asked him about souls, saying if he consumed all those lives he also consumed the souls. This made Renfield almost completely lose his "sanity" again. It was very interesting how his sanity was like the mood of a bi-polar person.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how this book was all journal entries. It really helped me picture what was going on and understand it. I also like how there was journal entries from various people, so it had different thoughts and points of view. At first I was a little confused by why Jonathan Harker's journal just stopped, but at the end realized that every journal entry came together to form the book. This was a very interesting and exciting book to read and Bram Stoker did a very good job of writing it.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Dracula, I had many moments where I actually felt as if I were in the novel. The imagery used by Bram Stoker was unbelievable. The journal entries Bram stuck in there every now and then made the novel even more exciting. One thing that stuck out the most was when the novel stated, "feeding flies to a spider, then many spiders to one bird, and then wanted a cat."
ReplyDeleteI liked this book, it was very well written and the author was very descriptive with his imagery, describing everything to the minutest of details, until I was able to picture everything in my head. And the technique he used to tell the story was executed with such mastery that while reading, I actually felt as though I were reading the journals of real people. However even through all the descriptiveness and masterful technique, one important question is still unanswered to me. Either through the fault of the author or my own, I still don't know what made Dracula into a vampire. Was he bitten by another vampire? Was it his choice to become a vampire? Or was he just always a vampire? I really liked this book, and perhaps it is just me, but I feel that the knowledge of what made Dracula the monster that he was would make the novel just that much better.
ReplyDeleteI actually didn't like the how the book was all journal entries, except for Johnathan's. I was mad when It switched to Mina and Lucy's letters because I wanted to read more about what happened inside the castle. It would have been amazing to hear just about his experience with Count Dracula. But had it not switched, it wouldn't have been the same. Lucy and Mina wouldn't have met up with Van Helsing and Dracula may not have died.
ReplyDelete