I finished with Dracula yesterday...

I finished with Dracula yesterday. There is no words which represents the sweet tears of my heart that this novel made me drop. It's the first book that made me feel in love.

What do you think about it?

It was alright. I read it in high school and everyone that got past how hard it was to read wouldn't shut up about how amazing it was.

That being said I don't think it's neither hard to read or amazing. It's pretty good though. My personal vendetta being how rushed it seemed to get near the end.

I started it several months ago and was liking a lot but then some major life events happened and I haven't finished it.

It's okay. I get the praise since it's usually babby's first literary horror. But do read more literary horror, f a m, and then join us in the Lovecraft / cosmic horror threads.

I felt the last 30 pages annoying, because they are waiting for Dracula and he never appears. And then, they just kill him in two pages. That felt rushed as you said.

You have to finish it. It's hearth filling.

I had read many horror short stories before. Dracula Is actually my second horror novel.

anyobe remember that Veeky Forums poster that suggested thay Finnegans Wake was a response to Dracula?

What are some more examples of literary horror? I'm familiar with this and Lovecraft.

It really drags out towards the end. Could have done with at least half of their travels and searching for Dracula in vain.

"The Willows" by Blackwood and "The White People" by Machen are probably the best examples. Some others: Poe, Maupassant, Bierce, Chambers, Hodgson, M R James, Shiel, C A Smith, maybe R E Howard. More recently: TED Klein, Aickman, Ramsay Campbell, Ligotti, Laird Barron, and Langan's very recent The Fisherman.

I remember being 19 and having the summer off from my first year at college. I had a nook and a water proof cover do I hit the pool and started Dracula with a bong hit. 2 days later with the worst sunburn of my life I finished it because I couldn't stop reading it.

pynchon?

yeh

i never understood the feminist critique of this book, i found mina pretty well written for a 19 century book.

not sure why in all new versions everybody tries to change her character to make some kind of point and cuck Harker

One of, if not THE greatest horror novel ever written.

Has Stoker written any good novels besides Dracula? He wrote a bunch of other stuff, but nothing else seems to be particularly well known, at least that I know of. The Lair of the White Worm is the only one I've ever heard of, and that's only because of that weird ass movie.

Sheridan Le Fanu's In a Glass Darkly, Carmilla, Madame Crowl's Ghosts are all very good too.

no. and Dracula isn't even that well written either, it just became a literary meme.

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It was a very fun, atmospheric read. I ended up naming my cat after Mina; it's a cute name for a kitty.

Feminists absolutely hate decent women. Mina is just trying to help her husband throughout the entire novel and for some reason that makes her oppressed.

Two days? Fuck, you really were energetic.

Dracula presents a concept of good (Mina) and bad (Lucy) women. Mina is like the heart of the group, the same form as Helsing being the brain. Mina is the representation of perfect woman, being loyal and strong. Mina is the opposite, and her being converted to a vampire is like a kind of punishment of being a bad woman.

Nowadays, extreme feminists think that Mina is a stereotype and a dominated woman. They are retarded.

You're all wrong: it's all about the evil upper classes sucking the lifeblood from the working classes as nonchalantly depicted by the bourgeois narrator.

>Mina is just trying to help her husband throughout the entire novel and for some reason that makes her oppressed.
that's the thing, and if i remember correctly she doesn't just help, but collaborates and is respected by everybody

that makes sense, but i don't remember lucy being that bad in the book, just a bit childish and innocent, but i may be remembering wrong. i guess it may be seen as lack of maturity and virtue that causes her demise. maybe i fail to see her fault clearly because in modern culture women can't be expected to hold any responsibility.

they made her a slut in the keanu reeves movie, though.

Lucy was a good person and very friendly. Everyone like her in the book. But she was childish and very open in her desires (she complains about only having one man, and she wanted more). These kind of things were the characteristics of "bad women" in that moment.

I think there's also something to be said about the corrupting nature of sin. It's this Christian idea that if you allow sin into your heart or allow yourself to sin in even the smallest ways without repentance then there's a sort of snowball effect which leads to you committing greater sins. This is exactly what happened to Lucy. She started out as a good person committing small sins which opened the door to being taken by the devil personified and the next thing you know she's eating children.

If you liked it, then don't even try reading the "sequel" made by Dacre Stoker, because it'll make you puke.

I still regret it

I completely agree except for the "it's not hard part". If you are not used to this level of english, the book is quite confusing and long to read.

I read the synopsis and I already want to puke.
Typical children who think that they can be "AS GOOD AS DADDY WAS :DDDD" (or his grand-grandfather, in this case)

It's funny because Dracula isn't the antagonist and he has almost no relevance. He just appears in the last 30 pages or so, so the title itself makes no sense

The first half at Dracula's castle is great, but the second half with all the letters.. not a fan.

Renfield and Van Helsing were the most interesting part. The rest of the book is ok

>The first half at Dracula's castle is great
That's not even half. That's like the first 20% maybe. I agree it's the only good part of the book though.

How much more plebeian could two people possibly be? Go on and take it to eleven. Tell us how awesome the Name of the Wind and ASOIAF are.

>he enjoys reading several men acting way too chivalrously to a woman with no personality and the same blood transfusion scene being repeated over and over and over and over

I'm not going to play greentext with you.

...

i absolutely loved it when i was 19. so ill cherish that sweet memory at the time, and not reread it.

It looks and sounds boring.
Lmao a vampire??? Really, what next Frankenstein? Haha fucking old people man..

Not all cosmic but the Lovecraft circle has goodbye irritating classics.

*good horror classics

Carmilla blows it out of the fucking water mate

Yes, I have to read Carmilla too.

Read Paul Féval's Le Vampire then.