Should I read Dracula?

[Homers_child]

Hey, I was thinking that I would pick up Dracula as one of the next books I would read since I never read it. But since I was skimming through the Dracula topics, it seems as though a lot of people don't really like it too much. Is it not worth it? Not that you will change my mind, I really think I should read it just to see what it's like. But I want to know. Is it really that bad of a book? For being so famous, I would assume its famous for a reason.

I saw the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula, but I heard that it's not entirely true to the book? That's a let down already, since I actually really enjoyed that movie.

[General Urko]

None of the film versions I know of are entirely faithful to the book. Nosferatu, the German silent film, might be the closest. I read the book when I was about fifteen and loved it. Scared the heck out of me too. I haven't read it since then though, so I don't know how the adult me would feel about it.

[loe]

I would definitely recommend it.
I'm currently reading it and it's just wonderful and a great style of writing.
This storytelling with pieces of journal entries and letters creates such a dense and thrilling atmosphere better than any film.

Best regards

[Don Quixote Jr]

Yes, it is a must-read book, although I must admit I was not overly impressed the second time I read it. Try getting hold of the annotated version, which has lots of fascinating notes & pictures. There have been many, many film versions of Dracula (I think Roger Ebert said Francis Ford Coppola's version was NUMBER 200!!) and I've only seen a fraction of them, but Coppola's is my favorite.

[Scheherazade]

The movie is different from the book in many ways and, in my opinion, somewhat more exciting. The book keeps going on and on stretching the story that could have been told in 200 pages.

I don't consider this a *must* read (I was immensely disappointed) but if you are into this genre, you should give it a go.

[Neely]

Yes you should read this book definitely. It has its flaws certainly but it is such an iconic book that really I think everyone should read it. Most people come at Dracula through the film versions and a million spin offs from there, but really the original is the original full-stop.

[Homers_child]

Thanks for your input everyone. I will definitely give it a try but I won't have too high hopes in case its not the best. But I'm pretty excited to start it nevertheless, I've always loved vampire stories and I felt a little ashamed that I haven't read one of the most famous ones. But I'm just about to start Anna Karenina, so I'm afraid Dracula is going to have to wait a little bit.

[crystalmoonshin]

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

The movie is different from the book in many ways and, in my opinion, somewhat more exciting. The book keeps going on and on stretching the story that could have been told in 200 pages.

I don't consider this a *must* read (I was immensely disappointed) but if you are into this genre, you should give it a go.

In the film where Gary Oldman plays the role of Count Dracula, there is a brief background as to how Vlad became a vampire, that by renouncing God and ruining the altar. In the novel, there's nothing of that sort. And also, in the film, Mina Harker is the reincarnation of the wife of Vlad and she falls in love with Dracula. And agree with Scheherazade that it's more exciting, probably because it's more romantic, the vampire doing anything to see his beloved.

Try watching "Dracula: Dead and Loving It", a spin-off of earlier Dracula movies. I love Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of the hilarious Count.

[Tsuyoiko]

Read it, and then read Frankenstein and Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, if you haven't already. I read those three consecutively and enjoyed making comparisons between them.

[ShakespearesCat]

The book is a product of its times and should be read in that context. I like the idea of reading the annotated version - you will gain greater insight, and thus greater enjoyment, if you do.

After I saw the Gary Oldman Dracula, I had to revisit the book to see if a romance could be pulled from it. I really, really tried, but they really had to invent a lot to make it happen. It just wasn't a romance at all. It was terribly creepy and should be seen as meant to be that way.

Dracula is evil, through and through. No romance or love in him at all. The WAYS in which he is evil, how it manifests, is very interesting. On whom does he prey? HOW does he prey on them? What do others think of him? What happens to people's lives when he intrudes on them? There is LOT there that doesn't need a false romance for spice. Read it very carefully....

[Mathor]

I do not like vampire novels. I do not like stories about vampires. I do not like books about horror. I do not like vampire movies, I do not like any of the movies about this book, And yet Dracula remains in my top 5 novels of all-time, and always will I'm sure. It's just that good. I've heard a lot of people who talk about how boring this book is, but I just got really into it growing up. I don't know why, but this novel speaks to me.