Anyone kind of disappointed by the book "Dracula"?

Post Reply New Topic

So I finally got around to reading the actual book "Dracula" by Bram Stoker last summer. I thought there were definitely some good things about it - the visual descriptions of the physical environments, the changes characters go through as they turn into vampires, etc., were really good. The book is very good at creating a mood and conveying vivid visual images. In general, though, I ended up feeling kind of let down by it.

First of all, I thought a lot of the writing actually wasn't that great. I don't feel like it was anything about Victorian writing per se that bothered me - I've really liked books by Thomas Hardy, George Eliot, etc. I thought it was just kind of clunky, and a lot of the devices Stoker used to convey information to the reader were pretty awkward. The fact that the entire story was told through journal entries, etc., by the different characters created lots of situations that didn't seem very plausible.

And then there are the gender issues in the book. In general, I try not to impose too much modern political correctness on books I read from previous eras. Every book is, in some sense, a product of its time. "Dracula" was a bit too stodgy for me, though. There was a lot of obvious and implied stuff in the book about the "proper place of women," and all that, which wasn't really too interesting. I had always heard about how "Dracula" was this "fascinating study of Victorian sexual mores," or something like that. I didn't realize, though, that Stoker himself seems to have been a strong believer in those ideas. I guess I'm kind of used to the idea that "literary" writers are supposed to in some way be able stand back from their own time and place and examine them with a measure of objectivity. Not so with Stoker.

Another thing I noticed about the book was the complete lack of any kind of "love interest", or even real attraction, between Dracula and his female victims. That aspect has been in almost every filmed adaptation of the Dracula story that I've seen. I'm not lamenting that fact that it wasn't in the book, though. It seems like such an "NT" thing to do to insert the "romance" angle in the movies so more people will go to see them - haha!

I don't want to discourage anyone from reading the book, though. I think anyone who's interested in vampires, goth culture, etc., should go to the source and see what Stoker's version was like.

While I haven't read Dracula, I certainly understand where you're coming from. I had a similar experience trying to get into HP Lovecraft. Dude came up with some really cool monsters/aliens, but the actual stories are full of mundane details and kind of a chore to read. Not to mention the fact that a lot of it was apparently metaphors for his racist ideas, he was terrified of non-English non-white people.

I found the absence of the romance an interesting surprise to. I think it makes Dracula seem more like a cursed being that is a shadow of his former self. He is more monstrous and more tragic in a way.

Something about how vampirism was depicted yanked away the notion that it grants immortality. I imagined him as really an empty husk and a parasite. Also as insult to injury, he has fallen far as a royal figure. If I recall he even pretended to still have servants.

I guess it's fair to say some other person of the book were just adequate, though I enjoyed reading the insight of Van Helsing.


Kind of related to this is Frankenstein which has many differences. I was surprised to find no Igor in the book for instance.

I haven't read Dracula, but I've had to become familiar with the story, because a friend of mine is putting on a Dracula play in the second week of January...

It was utterly wordy but I still liked it.

In reference to Videodrome's comments about "Frankenstein" - I found that to be a much better book overall than "Dracula." I thought it was better written, more emotionally engaging, and had further-reaching ideas behind it. I guess some people consider it to be the first science fiction novel - it was first published in 1818. If anything, it's probably more relevant today than when it originally came out.

I agree that, like "Dracula," the differences in the book "Frankenstein" from the popular images in films, etc., are striking. If I remember correctly (I apologize if I get some of these details wrong, or give away any "spoilers"), the monster in "Frankenstein" had orange-ish skin, black lips, long straggly hair, and some of his limbs were different lengths/sizes due to Dr. Frankestein's feverish rush to build a monster as quickly as possible. Pretty different from the Boris Karloff version - no flat head, etc.

And Dracula's appearance in Stoker's book was also quite different from how I imagine most people probably picture him. Gary Oldman in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula film was closer to the book, but still different in some ways, especially the "older" Dracula we see in Transylvania. And I really don't think Coppola should have called his movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" since he used the old standby of putting in the "romance" thing. It's disingenuous.

It's got its flaws, but there's a reason it's my favorite novel. It's mostly terrific.

I adore first person prose. Dracula was the first epistolary novel I’d ever encountered. At 12, I thought Stoker was a genius for figuring out how to keep the first person narration while changing perspective!

@ the OP,

A couple of things… I’m not sure what you mean referring to Stoker as a “literary” writer. Stoker was just trying to tell a good story and pay some bills. He did not mean for this work to be some sort of social commentary. In spite of that, the work is one of the most influential works in the English language….Not bad, I’d say.

And about the whole romance/Victorian sex thing… What Dracula does is more akin to assault than romance. Dracula’s interactions with the likes of Lucy and Mina are meant to represent rape and corruption. By forcing himself on these young ladies, the Monster (and Dracula is a monster, not some tragic figure) is destroying their virtue and releasing their wonton sexual lusts. After the first few encounters Lucy and Mina are drawn to Dracula by blood lust... not love.


The notion that women were bundles of barely controlled emotion and sexual passion plagued by “hysteria” is very Victorian. Vibrating dildos were medical devices in Victorian times.

GoonSquad -

Yes, I actually wavered a bit on whether or not to refer to Stoker as a "literary" writer. From what I know of him I think you are probably right about his intentions in writing "Dracula." I guess the reference to literary writing I made was partially due to the fact that "Dracula" seems to be frequently taught in lit. classes, etc., and is considered to be a "classic." But I realize that that designation doesn't necessarily say anything about an author's intentions in writing a particular book. And no argument about how influential "Dracula" has been - that much is clear. Something about it definitely resonates with people.

Btw, I really like that quote from Epictetus in your signature - I think I'm going to save it. I've had the sense for a while that Stoic philosophy is something I could learn/benefit from. I need to look into it.

Ahh, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

I mostly study the Roman Stoa—Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius.

Those guys are all moralists, and being Roman, their philosophy reads like a tough-minded, practical guide to living a happy and ethical life, because that’s what philosophy was to them. Most of it is still surprisingly relevant.

A bit of trivia: Stoicism is the basis of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy… Even if you find that the Stoic outlook is not for you, I bet you’ll find a few handy tricks for coping with daily life.

Anyway, if you want to get a feel for actual Stoicism, start with Epictetus’ Enchiridion and/or the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. There are many great free translations of both all over the interwebs, and both sources provide Stoic philosophy in nice, bite-sized chunks.

If you still want more after that, I’d go with A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by W. B. Irvine for a modern take, or Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium by Seneca for a primary source.

Here's a good website too: http://www.newstoa.com/

Like Bram Stoker's Dracula, there is another movie called Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

I haven't seen all of it, but I think they tried to have it closer to the book. I've caught parts of it on TV and the Monster is actually a spoken role played by Robert Deniro.

I'm curious if anyone has seen this entire movie and if it's worth checking out.

"There is a stream of things entering into being, and time is a raging torrent; for no sooner does each thing enter our sight than it has been swept away, and another is passing in its place, and that too will be swept away."

Coincidentally enough, I came across that quote from Marcus Aurelius just a few days ago. That particular quote actually sounds a lot like Buddhism to me (although I'm sure Stoicism in general has its differences from eastern philosophy).

GoonSquad - Thanks a lot for those leads about Stoicism; I'm going to check those out. And that was really interesting about Stoicism being the original basis for CBT. I've actually had "A Guide to the Good Life" in my Amazon queue for a few months now, so I need to get my hands on that and read it.

(I'm glad I double checked this post - the quotes site that I copied those words of Marcus Aurelius from had him saying "time is a raging torment" - I missed that mistake the first time I posted this. I guess it actually could be a true statement, depending on your point of view, but the quote was definitely wrong - haha!)

I enjoyed reading Dracula, even though I'm not a fan of vampire stories per se. But there is a big difference between Bram Stoker and other Victorian writers. He wasn't a writer, more a fan of fantasy. He was a manager in the theatre world, so he was mostly someone who loved the drama but from the sidelines, as a business person, not so much as an artist.

What I noticed while reading Dracula, because I'd just gotten really interested in Jung and his concept of Active Imagination a few years prior to that, was that the story has archetypal symbolism all over it. I suspect (not a professional opinion, mind you) that he was dealing, in part, with bringing his feminine aspects into consciousness, both the negative and positive, as well as many other aspects of his psyche.

I find that a lot of stories of that sort are more fascinating from an archetypal standpoint. I also tend to think that's why they appeal to us, whether the writing is great or not. (Harry Potter comes to mind.)

Last edited by BlueAbyss on 24 Dec 2012, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've had that same thought many times regarding "Dracula." I'm not that familiar with Jung's writings per se (they're another one of those many things I've been meaning to look further into), but you can definitely tell that a lot of that kind of stuff is operating in Stoker's book.