Is this worth a read?

>that cover

any more books like dracula? it's fucking comfy and it's exactly what I lie reading. what about The Monk?

Coppola's adaptation was awful. I have no idea why it's so well received

Didn't Joyce hate this book?

Joyce liked sniffing farts. He's not exactly a man of discerning taste.

This. I went into Frankenstein expecting nothing and came out with one of my all time favorite books.

Joyce hated everything that wasn't his own work. Especially other irish.

I finally watched that entire movie a few weeks ago. It was such a cheesy mess.

He didn't hate Yeats

The book was boring shit apart from the first 50 pages

danieldavidwallace.com/2012/06/15/james-joyce-meets-wb-yeats/

He hated Yeats for a long time and waited till he was dead to admit Yeats was better.

I'll be honest I hate vampires but I read some segments of the first couple chapters of Dracula and found it very enamoring. It's a breath of fresh air to simply have a story about people who *just happen to be* vampires thus we take their "powers" for granted, and instead creates the atmosphere of for the first time coming into contact with and being distraught by what a vampire is. It comes with a unique eeriness that the vampire subgenre it spawned is utterly vacant of. The part where the narrator is looking at himself in the mirror of his room and Dracula comes up behind him, but he didn't notice because there was no reflection behind him; so he looks back at the mirror all perplexed only to validate to himself that this "Dracula" person, despite knowing him to be standing directly over his (narrator's) shoulder, does in fact not have a reflection: that's a far more compelling spookiness than watching Generic Vampire Flick and seeing vampirefags walking past a mirror without there being a reflection of them but in a completely run-of-the-mill, non-chalant manner. It frankly can't even compare.

So anyways I'm waiting for my copy in the mail. You might as well just go check a Goodreads/Amazon preview of the book and see if it suits you.

>It's a breath of fresh air to simply have a story
Scratch that, my wording is backwards. Try again:
It's a breath of fresh air to go from simply having a story about people who *just happen to be* vampires (thus we take their "powers" for granted), and instead recreating the atmosphere of for the first time coming into contact with, and being distraught by, what a vampire is.

does the book talk about the objective scientific fact that drinking blood literally makes humans younger? or is it just some gay faggot story about a vampire who is depressed because he's immortal

t. Elizabeth

>

lol

underrated

All the characters except Van Helsing are terrible Mary Sues, utterly devoid of interesting traits.

Yes, it was surprisingly good.

how about this one?

this is the only good one. from barnes & noble of all people

This. Autistic dracula is very funny but most of the book is just Mina and The retarded Dutchman writing exessively long journal entries about how much they love their friends.

Van Helsing is no better. His shitty accent doesn't make him interesting

hurrdurr le flawed character meme, just because the women are not whores in the book it doesn't mean they are mary sues

If anything, Mina is the best character because she demonstrates great strength of character without turning into a badass femm cliche

yes and pay attention to how new media is employed

you think OPs is bad? weird taste.

naked girls sell desu

Tried both these shitty memes last Halloween and dropped both half way through. They are so boring it's SCARY

What about Jekyll & Hyde / Frankenstein?

>i'm gay
me too

>I have no idea why it's so well received
It was fucking hilarious.

The greatest weakness of Frankenstein, in my estimation, is that our Dr. Frankenstein is hit with fits of fever and is incapacitated for several months every time anything exciting happens. That made it a bit of a slog, but all in all the book was provocative and definitely worth a read

I have this one.

Charming place.