Sunday, November 6, 2011

Dracula by Bram Stoker

Dracula at
After passing over the audiobook version of Bram Stoker's Dracula at the library for years I finally decided to give it a listen. The timing (near Halloween) was coincidental. I figured it was just time to experience this novel if for no other reason than gaining the background of this pop culture phenomenon. (No, that is not a Twilight reference.)

Written around 1900, the novel features the flowery or long-winded prose of the day which isn't hard to digest. However, it was a bit of a stretch to handle Prof. Van Helsing's pidgin English (he's Dutch) - it was almost comical and distracting.

Not much more to say than that. Dracula was well worth the time and anyone who's a fan of modern vampire fiction (the Underworld movies are a guilty pleasure of mine mostly because of Kate Beckinsale) owes it to themselves to read the original. I suppose I should now watch the 1992 film starring Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins.


Danielle Pfaff said...

This is one of my favorite books! I mostly love Mina Harker (The League of Extraordinary Men film didn't do her justice... but then again, it didn't do any of the literary characters justice). When I first read the novel, what I found puzzling was how little Dracula is actually physically in the scenes. It's funny how pop culture translates it. Could Hugh Jackman's version of Van Helsing be any different than the one in the book? Not to mention that movie is also so-so. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

John said...

Let's be certain not to overstate my opinion. I'm glad for having read it, but I'm not going to rush out and buy the rest of Stoker's oeuvre.

We share an opinion of LoEG - that film was quite a dud. And Jackman's Van Helsing was quite distinct from the literary version. But that's why I'm interested in seeing a movie treatment that's a bit closer to the book.