August 2022 Book of the Month Club - Dracula

[verna davies]

Couple more days before discussion time, how is everyone doing?

 

[rubysmama]

Since I've finished reading the book, I've been Googling Dracula cartoons.

 

[rubysmama]

Time to post your reviews and/or thoughts on the book.
If you haven't finished reading yet, that's fine, just post when you're done.

Here's my review.

When Dracula was chosen as the book for August, I was a little leery, as I don’t normally read horror books, so I was happy that it was not really scary at all.

It was a very long book, so though it was a fast read, it still took me almost a week to read it. Some parts, where Bram Stoker got very “wordy” were a bit of a sludge to get through. An editor probably should have cut 100 pages or so from the final edit.

But the story grabbed my attention from the beginning, and being completely spoiler-free, I had zero idea what would happen, or how it would end.

I loved the beginning when Dracula was “centre stage”, and had all those interactions with Jonathan Harker. And wish he’d been a bigger part of the rest of the book, but I guess despite the book being named after him, the story was more about the men and women trying to hunt him down.

Speaking of the “hunt” it was the largest part of the book, and the actual finale happened so quickly and easily. I would have expected more casualties from the good guys. And for Dracula to actually put up a fight, but I guess that was why they had to kill him during his resting time.

My only real nitpick would be when the men took so long to figure out that something was going on with “poor, dear, dear, Madam Mina”. After what they witnessed with Lucy, it should have been obvious as soon as Mina started looking pale and being tired.

But there were also things I would have liked explanations for, such as why Renfield was obsessed with Dracula, and how did he even know about him?

But despite those little things, I did enjoy it. And am glad we read it.

4 stars, or rather bat wings. LOL

 

[verna davies]

I have mixed feelings about this book. I hadnt read it previously and was looking forward to it.

Loved the first four chapters with Jonathan Harker and Dracula, I found that very atmospheric but then it took a nosedive. The letters between Mina and Lucy, whilst giving us information on some characters were too drawn out. Again the conversation between Mr Swales and Mina in Whitby lost my interest.

The part on Lucy, her nightly visits and blood transfusions I found slow and repetitive.

I didn't see the point about who inherited Lucy's money after the death of her mother then her death relevant.

It picked up again when the much younger Dracula was seen in London by Jonathan and the young boys being found with puncture marks on their necks.

I found the part where Van Helsing took the three men to Lucy's body to prove she was one of the undead and them returning to pierce her heart well written. Wasnt aware of the cutting off the head and filling the mouth with garlic part of what was needed.

Didnt really get why Renfield was such a big part of the story, not even sure it was necessary at all. Maybe I missed something.

Was Mina bitten by Dracula, I dont remember reading that she had bite marks on her neck although she had all the other symptoms of having been bitten and the strong reaction to the sacred wafer.

I was disappointed with the ending, I expected more of a battle from Dracula being as the sun was setting, didn't expect him to disintegrate to dust without putting up a fight.

Overall I enjoyed the 'action' parts of the book but had difficulty motivating myself to read for long spells. Maybe I shouldn't have expected it to be as dramatic as the old film with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushion.

I give this book

 

[pearl99]

I finished it yesterday, read almost all of it from Thursday to Sunday while I was on a trip to my niece's wedding in Tulsa. Time on the plane and in the hotel to read!
I knew some particulars of the story- about garlic and crucifixes warding Dracula and his minions and about the stake through the heart; about bats and wolves. Not about the wafer and having to cut their heads off!
When Van Helsing showed up I knew more of the story and how it would end.
So it was more of seeing how it unfolded.
The language was less flowery and wordy than some from this time, so that was good. I felt some of it dragged on with too long of descriptions as in Lucy and Mina's letters.
I thought Renfield added another dimension to the book to make it more fleshed out, though how they knew of each other was never explained. A madman showing a side of Dracula's effect on people pre-bites and blood, more than the weakness, pallor, sleeping and the behavior of his full minions like the three women vampires. I thought Renfield was interesting.
I wished the cowboy hadn't died, and was glad it wasn't an epic battle right at the end- I'd have liked all three gallant gentlemen to have survived and eliminate the vampire.
I didn't find it scary at all, and a little lengthy, I thought some could have been edited out also. I liked Frankenstein much better.
I was really glad Harker was eventually okay and Mina was okay, and that Bram Stoker had a woman playing an essential role in Dracula's end, and she wasn't just a weak woman.
Interesting Mina brought up sympathy for Dracula, of the human he may have been centuries ago before he fell victim and that Mina may need the same sympathy and remembrance of what she once was, if she was not saved.

I'd give .
I'm glad to have read it too, I like to read classics.

 

[verna davies]

So far we all felt it could have been made shorter. Many books are short and need padding out but not Dracula, quite the opposite.

 

[rubysmama]

The letters between Mina and Lucy, whilst giving us information on some characters were too drawn out.

Part of the purpose, I presume, was to introduce her 3 "suitors", who would later each try to save her life.

Was Mina bitten by Dracula, I dont remember reading that she had bite marks on her neck although she had all the other symptoms of having been bitten and the strong reaction to the sacred wafer.

I went back and checked, and in the scenes where they find Mina pressed to Dracula's chest, afterwards it mentions blood dripping from her mouth, as well as the punctures in her neck.

didn't expect him to disintegrate to dust without putting up a fight.

Guess because he was so old, unlike Lucy who was newly vampire-ized.

The language was less flowery and wordy than some from this time, so that was good.

I found that as well. So easier to read and understand.

I liked Frankenstein much better.

We got Frankenstein's POV, which we didn't get with Dracula.

that Bram Stoker had a woman playing an essential role in Dracula's end, and she wasn't just a weak woman.

Like the inspiration for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Interesting Mina brought up sympathy for Dracula, of the human he may have been centuries ago before he fell victim and that Mina may need the same sympathy and remembrance of what she once was, if she was not saved.

Do we even know how he became a vampire? Bit by a rabid bat, maybe?

 

[pearl99]

We got Frankenstein's POV, which we didn't get with Dracula.

That is true! His POV would have been interesting.

Like the inspiration for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!

Do we even know how he became a vampire? Bit by a rabid bat, maybe?

Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).

 

[catloverfromwayback]

That is true! His POV would have been interesting.


I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!


Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).

I think it’s suggested when Van Helsing is talking about Dracula’s history that he “attended the Scholomance” and was the tenth scholar chosen by the Devil as payment. Stoker seems to have based him at least partly on Vlad the Impaler (he did at least get the name and Romanian location from his history), not a man one generally feels sorry for!

 

[rubysmama]

I didn't think about Buffy during this. I haven't watched any of that show, maybe I should!

I loved that show back in the day, but haven't watched any episodes in years, so don't know if it would feel dated now or not. But if come across the series, it might be worth checking out.

Season 1 is mostly standalone episodes and was the show finding its groove. Seasons 2 and 3 were the absolute best, and I waited patiently each week for the new episode. Like so many shows that run a long time, it wasn't as good in the later seasons, but there were still some standout episodes that were really good..

In one of the later seasons, Dracula had a guest appearance, though I can't remember much about what happened in that episode, as it's been too long since I saw it.

Not from the book, but looking it up a bit (and I hadn't remembered this) Bram Stoker said in the book he was a "soldier, statesman, and alchemist" and studied "alchemy and black magic"- I found an article on ScreenRant Who Turned Dracula Into A Vampire (In Original Books & Netflix Show).

I think it’s suggested when Van Helsing is talking about Dracula’s history that he “attended the Scholomance” and was the tenth scholar chosen by the Devil as payment. Stoker seems to have based him at least partly on Vlad the Impaler (he did at least get the name and Romanian location from his history), not a man one generally feels sorry for!

Interesting. Thanks, both of you, for posting that info.

 

[catloverfromwayback]

I loved that show back in the day, but haven't watched any episodes in years, so don't know if it would feel dated now or not. But if come across the series, it might be worth checking out.

Season 1 is mostly standalone episodes and was the show finding its groove. Seasons 2 and 3 were the absolute best, and I waited patiently each week for the new episode. Like so many shows that run a long time, it wasn't as good in the later seasons, but there were still some standout episodes that were really good..

In one of the later seasons, Dracula had a guest appearance, though I can't remember much about what happened in that episode, as it's been too long since I saw it.





Interesting. Thanks, both of you, for posting that info.

Welcome! I had quite an interest in Vlad years ago.

 

[rubysmama]

Another comic while we wait for more reviews / comments.

 

[Boris Diamond]

The first 4 chapters were OK for me. But when we started reading the journals I got bored. I have never been a fan of reading the letters and journals of associated people in the novel and trying to glean information from them. I am not interested in people prattling on about their personal business and trying to extract information from that. I scanned through chapter 7, looked at some of chapters 8-11, realized there were 16 chapters more of this and stopped reading. I tried looking at it a few more times, but every time I started reading it, my brain would shut down. Not for me.

There were some unusual items in the book. I did not know what to think of "cat's meat sellers." It turns out that in 1861, there were about 1000 people who sold meat for cats in London. They were not popular with many because of the gangs of stray cats that would follow them around yowling. The meat was on a spit and that was the association that the main character had for the meat that was served to him on the way to Dracula's castle. I suppose that these days we might call them shish kabobs. Many of the dishes that were served to our main character I had never heard of and there was little to be found about them in internet searches.

I paid $.29 for this book, so I am not too disappointed. It is a Gothic horrror novel and I will not be reading from this genre again.


One star

 

[verna davies]

Boris Diamond It wasn't a page turner thats for sure and I felt the same as you about the letters and journals, a little that was needed about the story and a lot that was idle chitchat. At least you gave it a go and retried several times. Hopefully there will be some coming up that you enjoy to read.

 

[gilmargl]

I found Dracula a fairly easy, in part a rather boring read - until the end when I was fearful about what would happen to Mina once she'd shown the first signs of becoming a vampire herself.
But ...... and it's a big BUT!
This book was written in Catholic Ireland in 1897 and is an amazing reflection of the times. God was not a God of Love; religion was a way of life with all its symbolism and fear of attracting God's wrath. Mental illness was associated with works of the devil and then there was an increasing interest in vampire-like creatures, which have been described even as early as in Ancient Greece. Central and Eastern Europe abounded in myths about these satanic Un-dead creatures, living on the blood of sleeping victims and spreading disease and death. Hypnotism and blood transfusions were the new hope for medical progress although, I assume, little, if anything, was known about blood types and rhesus factors and the limits of results from hypnotism were only to be discovered later. Information was exchanged in long (boring?) letters and people had more time to read and write at leasure.

I then recalled my schooldays. The teacher of English literature, included Frankenstein and Dracula among the books we could be reading in our spare time, to improve our skills, but added that Dracula was based on an earlier work ........
My research (in books - not Wikipedia!) led me to the short stories "In a Glass Darkly" written by Sheridan Le Fanu, an Irish journalist. The book was published in 1872. A female vampire appeared in the short story "Carmilla" which you can read at Wikisource

Carmilla​

and, of course, I had to read that as well. It is much shorter, but, in many ways, similar to Stoker's Dracula. There are other even earlier works on vampires, which I found - this time on the Internet - but I'm not going into any more detail.

The books "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" are two very different horror stories - the one a vision of what man could be capable of and the other a fantasy, but based on the life and fears of Catholic Ireland in 1897.

All films based on these stories have concentrated on the horrors and become very successful. Unfortunately, the more interesting side of both stories are necessarily lost and most people even think that Frankenstein is the monster, rather than the scientist who put him together.

I suppose, as a book , just for reading on your own
but, if there were an opportunity for further lively discussions to gain more information on the social history, to find out more about the progress in blood transfusions, treatment of mental illness and hypnotism, and not forgetting the other vampire-like creatures in myths and literature, surely a !

I would also be interested in Stoker's other works to see how his female characters are presented. I cannot imagine that they are pretty but brainless - perhaps a reason for his books no longer being read! (Just a thought!)

 

[Boris Diamond]

I would also be interested in Stoker's other works to see how his female characters are presented. I cannot imagine that they are pretty but brainless - perhaps a reason for his books no longer being read! (Just a thought!)

I was not sure of what to think of this quote from Dracula!

"...why are men so noble when we women are so little worthy of them?" I blush...

 

[gilmargl]

I was not sure of what to think of this quote from Dracula!

"...why are men so noble when we women are so little worthy of them?" I blush...

I was surprised and somewhat shocked by this statement. I think that's religion for you and what some men would like to hear! I can remember a girl at school - far more sophisticated than I was - saying that men serve and fear God, while women have a duty to man. At the time, I was perhaps 14, it made me think - but not now!
Both women in Dracula were more than willing to serve their masters and not upset them. But, the men also treated the women with kid-gloves! No passionate debates between men and women in those days.

 

[catloverfromwayback]

I found Dracula a fairly easy, in part a rather boring read - until the end when I was fearful about what would happen to Mina once she'd shown the first signs of becoming a vampire herself.
But ...... and it's a big BUT!
This book was written in Catholic Ireland in 1897 and is an amazing reflection of the times. God was not a God of Love; religion was a way of life with all its symbolism and fear of attracting God's wrath. Mental illness was associated with works of the devil and then there was an increasing interest in vampire-like creatures, which have been described even as early as in Ancient Greece. Central and Eastern Europe abounded in myths about these satanic Un-dead creatures, living on the blood of sleeping victims and spreading disease and death. Hypnotism and blood transfusions were the new hope for medical progress although, I assume, little, if anything, was known about blood types and rhesus factors and the limits of results from hypnotism were only to be discovered later. Information was exchanged in long (boring?) letters and people had more time to read and write at leasure.

I then recalled my schooldays. The teacher of English literature, included Frankenstein and Dracula among the books we could be reading in our spare time, to improve our skills, but added that Dracula was based on an earlier work ........
My research (in books - not Wikipedia!) led me to the short stories "In a Glass Darkly" written by Sheridan Le Fanu, an Irish journalist. The book was published in 1872. A female vampire appeared in the short story "Carmilla" which you can read at Wikisource

Carmilla​

and, of course, I had to read that as well. It is much shorter, but, in many ways, similar to Stoker's Dracula. There are other even earlier works on vampires, which I found - this time on the Internet - but I'm not going into any more detail.

The books "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" are two very different horror stories - the one a vision of what man could be capable of and the other a fantasy, but based on the life and fears of Catholic Ireland in 1897.

All films based on these stories have concentrated on the horrors and become very successful. Unfortunately, the more interesting side of both stories are necessarily lost and most people even think that Frankenstein is the monster, rather than the scientist who put him together.

I suppose, as a book , just for reading on your own
but, if there were an opportunity for further lively discussions to gain more information on the social history, to find out more about the progress in blood transfusions, treatment of mental illness and hypnotism, and not forgetting the other vampire-like creatures in myths and literature, surely a !

I would also be interested in Stoker's other works to see how his female characters are presented. I cannot imagine that they are pretty but brainless - perhaps a reason for his books no longer being read! (Just a thought!)

No, it was written in England. Stoker was Protestant (Church of Ireland) and had been living in England since about 1878. He was Sir Henry Irving’s business manager at the Lyceum Theatre - it’s been suggested Irving was one of the inspirations for his physical description of Dracula. He researched much of it at the London Library.

 

[gilmargl]

No, it was written in England. Stoker was Protestant (Church of Ireland) and had been living in England since about 1878. He was Sir Henry Irving’s business manager at the Lyceum Theatre - it’s been suggested Irving was one of the inspirations for his physical description of Dracula. He researched much of it at the London Library.

You're right of course, but he was born in Dublin, in 1847 and worked as a civil servant until 1878. I would love to read some of his other stories. Incidentally, the Catholic and Protestant Churches at the time were extremely similar, at least in their practices and attitudes to women.

 

[rubysmama]

The first 4 chapters were OK for me.

The first 4 chapters were definitely the best.

There were some unusual items in the book. I did not know what to think of "cat's meat sellers." It turns out that in 1861, there were about 1000 people who sold meat for cats in London. They were not popular with many because of the gangs of stray cats that would follow them around yowling. The meat was on a spit and that was the association that the main character had for the meat that was served to him on the way to Dracula's castle.

I missed the "cat's meat sellers" mention. But do recall thinking "glad I'm vegetarian" when I read about the meals Jonathan was getting at the castle.

It is a Gothic horrror novel and I will not be reading from this genre again.

I, on the other hand, am curious about what the other books written in this genre would be like.

Information was exchanged in long (boring?) letters and people had more time to read and write at leasure.

That's a really good observation. No phones or emails back then, so you had to write everything down that you wanted to tell someone who you couldn't talk to in person. Even when I was a kid, my friends and I would send each other letters, or postcards, when one was away on vacation. These days, of course, no one writes letters anymore.