# Reading > Forum Book Club >  Dracuala, on a scale of 1 to 5

## IWilKikU

what did you guys think? One being terrible, (Newt Gingriches attemt at writing scifi) Five being extraordinary (Shakespeare).

----------


## Azoic

I can't vote on this issue; being that I don't like Shakespeare enough to use him as the upper end of the scale.  :Biggrin:

----------


## IWilKikU

Ok, so not everyone loves Shakespeare, as I'm sure not everyone hates Newt, but you get the idea behind a 1-5 scale right? So gimme a vote. Mine is lonely  :Frown:

----------


## Azoic

1-5 scale? What? *smacks own head* Oh right, just vote  :Biggrin:

----------


## crisaor

It's not perfect, but it's great; Stoker's best work by far. 
I give it a 4. So far, it's seems to be common idea.

----------


## IWilKikU

ok guys, I KNOW that more than three people read the effing book! Vote guys! Dont you know its your responsability as an American citizen?!?!!??!?! Oh wait, were talking about Dracula arn't I??? I guess I got confused. But still, vote!...please

----------


## Steph-Bloom

I think Dracula is brillent, it's based on the true story of Vlad the impalller which i think evryone who read's Dracular suold find out about! yer so Dracular rocks big time.......... a dark, tall, misterious man what else could a girl ask for! and the books great to  :Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

I read Drac some time ago, so may be a bit rusty on it. However, I remember being really irritated by its style: I hate reading all that diary stuff. The way it skips from one diary entry to another seems tedious to me. Wilkie Collins used the same method I think in The Moonstone. However, that was a far superior novel. And recently, Matthew Kneale used the method in English Passengers, again a better novel than Dracula. 

Bram Stoker will never be considered a great novelist: Firstly, what else did he do of any note other than Dracula? Secondly, what is innovative or unique about that novel? What is it telling us that we haven't been told elsewhere?

I think that it is quite simply over-rated. Which is why I only gave it 3/5. Even that is rather generous. It is more mediocre than 3 really.

Atiguhya Padma

----------


## crisaor

Wow. Atiguhya padma, you're the first person ever (that I know of) to speak bad of Dracula. I understand that you may not like it (personally I adored the journal style) but implying that it has no uniqueness or innovation is excesive and mistaken in my opinion.

Read The Lair of the White Worm if you're willing to give Stoker another chance. But considering that you didn't enjoy Dracula (even when you gave it a decent note), I doubt that you'll like it.

----------


## IWilKikU

> _Originally posted by atiguhya padma_ 
> * what is innovative or unique about that novel? What is it telling us that we haven't been told elsewhere?
> 
> *


The reason that we've all heard the legend before, is thanks to Stoker. Sure, the legend existed (I think) before he wrote Dracula, but it wasn't as well known. Now days 4 year olds know who Dracula is. If Stoker hadn't written the book, Dracula would still be an obscure legend that only Vampire fanatics would know about. Which raises another question: would there even be vampire fanatics?

----------


## crisaor

> _Originally posted by IWilKikU_ 
> *The reason that we've all heard the legend before, is thanks to Stoker. Sure, the legend existed (I think) before he wrote Dracula, but it wasn't as well known.*


Yes it did. There's a lot of Vlad Tepes in both the book and the movie (specially the last one), but the vampire is a pretty common legend anyway. Most cultures have a similar tale.



> _Originally posted by IWilKikU_ 
> *Now days 4 year olds know who Dracula is. If Stoker hadn't written the book, Dracula would still be an obscure legend that only Vampire fanatics would know about. Which raises another question: would there even be vampire fanatics?*


Good question. Probably not. But Stoker's work shouldn't be dimished by that.  :Biggrin:   :Wink:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Actually, I reckon the films did more for the legend than the book. There were plenty of vampire stories and books around before Stoker's. If I recall correctly (not that I was there of course!), when the Shelley's, Byron and Dr. Polidori were holidaying on the shores of Lake Geneva, they lay around a campfire, and tried to scare themselves with gothic stories. Out of this experiment came the kernel of Frankenstein and a fragment of a vampire story by Polidori. 

That they were able to conjure a vampire story ad hoc, suggests that the vampire story was well-known by the second decade of the 19th century. 

Anyway, the Stoker novel is more interesting for its thinly veiled sexuality than for its crude myth. Stoker could have done so much more with the story as well.

Atiguhya Padma.

----------


## crisaor

> _Originally posted by atiguhya padma_ 
> *Actually, I reckon the films did more for the legend than the book.*


But the book was the starting point for most of the movies, even those that didn't follow it.



> _Originally posted by atiguhya padma_ 
> *There were plenty of vampire stories and books around before Stoker's. If I recall correctly (not that I was there of course!), when the Shelley's, Byron and Dr. Polidori were holidaying on the shores of Lake Geneva, they lay around a campfire, and tried to scare themselves with gothic stories. Out of this experiment came the kernel of Frankenstein and a fragment of a vampire story by Polidori.*


Indeed. It's called _The Vampyr_, and it was finished in 1831, if I'm not mistaken.



> _Originally posted by atiguhya padma_ 
> *That they were able to conjure a vampire story ad hoc, suggests that the vampire story was well-known by the second decade of the 19th century.*


Yes. The legend is fairly common, you see.

----------


## IWilKikU

I know that the legend of the vampire is ancient, but the story of "Count Dracula", was that around, or was he a character that Stoker first brought life? I know he was based on Vlad, but was Stoker's story the first appearance of "DRACULA"?

----------


## crisaor

I believe so. From what I know, the name 'Dracula' was originally used in literature by Stoker, and it's a reference to a religious order. The movie says something about this, at the beginning. But the name Dracula is related solely to Vlad Tepes, not to the vampire mythos.

----------


## Page Sniffer

I'm a Drac fan and would have to give it a 3. Talk about the ripple effect of influence, look at all of the Dracula's this, and Dracula's that, etc there have been. Drac has been drac'd almost to death. I say almost because there will be another come along at some point, but how hard it it gonna be to put a new angle on it if at all?

Hey let's not forget Lady Bathory though. She was a real, live virgin slayer psycho that bathed in blood to stay young (she thought). Hostel 2 plays around with that one.

----------


## DapperDrake

I've said it before, great story, poorly written.

----------


## byquist

3-4; it's written so seriously like it's the end of the world; also, they're (the guys) are often dumb to leave the ladies unattended -- "Oh, I must go on a trip so I'll see you in three days."

----------


## iloveamano

Hehehehe, yeah, I like Dracula. I give it a 4/5, not because it was extraordinarily written, nor for having decent insights or a landmark mainstream effect, but because, as byquist pointed out, all the characters take themselves so seriously it borders a little on the ridiculous (not that anything even just sorta-epic doesn't). 
Heavily "paraphrased" example:
(VanHelsing) - 'oh nov, poor, poor Madame Mina. I vill make better you! [takes holy wafer, puts it on Mina's head.] 
(Mina) - 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!' [faints, and everybody gasps at the wafer burn on her forehead]
(next journal entry, three to four pages later, by Van Helsing) - 'poor, poor Madame Mina! She haf this holy burn mark on forehead that remind her of her impurity. Poor, poor Madame Mina! I vill help her!'

----------


## ladyofthenight

I have just finished reading Dracula for the first time. I rather enjoyed it, although I couldn't help but feel that the ending left more to desire. I'm not sure exactly why, I just feel that is was sudden and sort of incomplete? Perhaps it was just the diary writing style that threw me off, considering we never really hear Dracula's version of any of this. I bet that would be an interesting read as well.

I have to admit also that the frailty of the women in the novel was somewhat unnerving. I like strong female characters and Mina was a strong character, but she constantly devalued herself throughout the novel. 

Of course this is all just my opinion... I would still give Dracula a 4/5

----------


## jikan myshkin

considering that he never went further east than whitby, yorkshire it's a good pictation of romania but for me the book lacked that intensity

----------

