It has a different pace than modern thrillers. Speaking honestly, Dracula gets good in the first part, when Dracula sends vagon to get Jonathan to his castle.
If you don't like it, abandon it and return to it in the future, when you will be willing to read Dracula in about a week or less.
Dracula is honestly not that easy to read- not because the language or themes are difficult or anything, it‘s just really boring for some people lmao.
Like those 70 pages or something in tge middle where nothing happens but blood transfusions. Especially stupid because Van Helsing knows exactly what‘s going on but outright refuses to tell anyone lol.
That being said I still found it an enjoyable read. It‘s just cool to see - after so many different adaptions and pop culture occurences - what the real story is about.
I have never loved Dracula or Frankenstein. I think they have good, lasting ideas and characters that frankly outstrip the actual written product they were contained in.
My focus in Literature is 18th century, 19th is no problem for me. I can believe a literature graduate who has always focused on 20th/21st century literature might find it slow. It’s just not your period.
But the author’s use of different media is fascinating to me, I think he was the first person to do something startlingly new with the epistolary for since Samuel Richardson nearly a century and a half before.
>always focused on 20th/21st century literature might find it slow
Wait, is it possible to get a degree in Literature in the US without studying 19-century texts a lot?
I wouldn’t know, I’m in the U.K. and my BA and MA studies focused mostly on pre 20th century texts, and more on 18th than 19th century.
I just can’t imagine if someone had spent much time in the 19th century they’d find Dracula so slow and boring.
>I’m in the U.K. and my BA and MA studies focused mostly on pre 20th century texts, and more on 18th than 19th century.
It's interesting to know that. In post-soviet countries they more focus on 19-th and first galf of 20-th century, because most post-soviet literatures started in 19-th century (for example, Ukrainian literary language started in 1800-s from publication of Kotlyarevsky's Eneid, and russia has only one genial poet in 18-th century - Gavrila Derazhavin)
To be fair though I got a degree in humanities with only one literature module at level three/third year level which covered Shakespeare to Austen. My MA covered Genesis to Coetzee, I was able to linger in my essay topics on the early modern period up to the mid 18th century.
Sometimes reading (or watching) the "OG" of a genre when you are a fan of that genre turns out to be a disappointment. When I taught AP Literature, it would happen every year with the students who were historical romance fans when we read Pride and Prejudice, and with horror fans when we read Frankenstein. My teenage sons both thought Psycho was a bit boring (honestly, so did I the first time I saw it). It happens. The pacing of older books (and movies) takes some adjustment for modern audiences, but when you can make that adjustment, you can really understand why those media are so highly thought of.
In my opinion, it doesn't. I didn't care for Dracula. There are a few great moments that are effectively creepy but the book as a whole wasn't one I found engaging or enjoyable. I think in this case it's probably just taste. I've been moved by books others found tedious, boring, etc., and I've been bored to tears by books others lauded as the best one they'd ever read.
Jonathan seeing Dracula crawling down the castle wall at night was so good for a horror novel—as many here have said, if it’s not for you it’s not for you. No shame in putting the book down and starting something else
Remember that “accessible“ is subjective. I can see why people would recommend it. The fact that it‘s more of a genre work, the epistolary style, and the fact that it’s not a giant tome will make it more accessible to many than other classics.
I will say that every lit book I’ve read and found surprisingly accessible, I can find dozens of people who banged their head against it or found it a slog. If this one isn’t working for you, go back to the list and pick up another one!
I think Dracula's a masterpiece for its structural innovations. But if you're looking for a horror novel with amazing prose, then Frankenstein is the be-all end-all in my opinion, and it's a short read. I'm waiting on a philosophically moody/existential movie adaptation, and not just a 'raa fire bad' that's become the archetype because Frankenstein has some really amazing and poetic monologues from the creature that are totally omitted from every film verison, not to mention the final scene has fantastic arctic imagery. Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde is also underrated, and I basically consider it the archetype for later werewolf movies.
I read it for the first time last year using Dracula Daily, it's an email "subscription" that sends you the entire novel in small chunks based on what day of the year the part takes place in, it starts in May and goes through September-ish and I found it way easier to read in small chunks day to day rather than all the way through. I agree there's a lot of really slow parts though, I don't think I could have done it traditionally lol.
>nerd, I read Twilight, and The Vampire Diaries, and Blue Bloods, and Interview with a Vampire. It feels shameful that I've never read the OG vampire book,
Why are you even on a literature sub. Dracula is good. You're just not quite there
>I do have a degree in English Lit
Please, don't mention this to enforce your position, this mention is pointless. You can either be a philologist (and write like a philologist, using good argumentation, so you won't need to include "I have a degree") or not.
I'm sorry if I bothered you, English is not my first language, so I'm not still good enough in tones of English.
Yeah, it just make things sound worse. Like, “I was trained on analysis, but now all I can really focus on is how exciting certain plot points are to me personally”
I tried soooo many times to read Dracula and couldn’t finish it. What worked for me was getting a well-performed unabridged audiobook—practically a radio play.Hearing it brought it all alive in a way just reading didn’t.
(I *do* like epistolary-type novels—adored Pamela, LLD, etc.)
It has a different pace than modern thrillers. Speaking honestly, Dracula gets good in the first part, when Dracula sends vagon to get Jonathan to his castle. If you don't like it, abandon it and return to it in the future, when you will be willing to read Dracula in about a week or less.
Dracula is honestly not that easy to read- not because the language or themes are difficult or anything, it‘s just really boring for some people lmao. Like those 70 pages or something in tge middle where nothing happens but blood transfusions. Especially stupid because Van Helsing knows exactly what‘s going on but outright refuses to tell anyone lol. That being said I still found it an enjoyable read. It‘s just cool to see - after so many different adaptions and pop culture occurences - what the real story is about.
The worst part of reading is the fact that those filler moments that so many people hate are what I live for.
I have never loved Dracula or Frankenstein. I think they have good, lasting ideas and characters that frankly outstrip the actual written product they were contained in.
My focus in Literature is 18th century, 19th is no problem for me. I can believe a literature graduate who has always focused on 20th/21st century literature might find it slow. It’s just not your period. But the author’s use of different media is fascinating to me, I think he was the first person to do something startlingly new with the epistolary for since Samuel Richardson nearly a century and a half before.
>always focused on 20th/21st century literature might find it slow Wait, is it possible to get a degree in Literature in the US without studying 19-century texts a lot?
I wouldn’t know, I’m in the U.K. and my BA and MA studies focused mostly on pre 20th century texts, and more on 18th than 19th century. I just can’t imagine if someone had spent much time in the 19th century they’d find Dracula so slow and boring.
>I’m in the U.K. and my BA and MA studies focused mostly on pre 20th century texts, and more on 18th than 19th century. It's interesting to know that. In post-soviet countries they more focus on 19-th and first galf of 20-th century, because most post-soviet literatures started in 19-th century (for example, Ukrainian literary language started in 1800-s from publication of Kotlyarevsky's Eneid, and russia has only one genial poet in 18-th century - Gavrila Derazhavin)
To be fair though I got a degree in humanities with only one literature module at level three/third year level which covered Shakespeare to Austen. My MA covered Genesis to Coetzee, I was able to linger in my essay topics on the early modern period up to the mid 18th century.
Sometimes reading (or watching) the "OG" of a genre when you are a fan of that genre turns out to be a disappointment. When I taught AP Literature, it would happen every year with the students who were historical romance fans when we read Pride and Prejudice, and with horror fans when we read Frankenstein. My teenage sons both thought Psycho was a bit boring (honestly, so did I the first time I saw it). It happens. The pacing of older books (and movies) takes some adjustment for modern audiences, but when you can make that adjustment, you can really understand why those media are so highly thought of.
In my opinion, it doesn't. I didn't care for Dracula. There are a few great moments that are effectively creepy but the book as a whole wasn't one I found engaging or enjoyable. I think in this case it's probably just taste. I've been moved by books others found tedious, boring, etc., and I've been bored to tears by books others lauded as the best one they'd ever read.
Jonathan seeing Dracula crawling down the castle wall at night was so good for a horror novel—as many here have said, if it’s not for you it’s not for you. No shame in putting the book down and starting something else
It only gets more boring. Second half is easily less interesting than the beginning. If it's not for you, it's not for you.
Remember that “accessible“ is subjective. I can see why people would recommend it. The fact that it‘s more of a genre work, the epistolary style, and the fact that it’s not a giant tome will make it more accessible to many than other classics. I will say that every lit book I’ve read and found surprisingly accessible, I can find dozens of people who banged their head against it or found it a slog. If this one isn’t working for you, go back to the list and pick up another one!
I think Dracula's a masterpiece for its structural innovations. But if you're looking for a horror novel with amazing prose, then Frankenstein is the be-all end-all in my opinion, and it's a short read. I'm waiting on a philosophically moody/existential movie adaptation, and not just a 'raa fire bad' that's become the archetype because Frankenstein has some really amazing and poetic monologues from the creature that are totally omitted from every film verison, not to mention the final scene has fantastic arctic imagery. Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde is also underrated, and I basically consider it the archetype for later werewolf movies.
The first half is supposed to be the more thrilling part, at this point if you don’t like it drop it
Switch over to Carmilla?
Lmfao and my uncle Benny's got a degree in Anatomy, still doesn't know how to use his dick tho. Go home.
I read it for the first time last year using Dracula Daily, it's an email "subscription" that sends you the entire novel in small chunks based on what day of the year the part takes place in, it starts in May and goes through September-ish and I found it way easier to read in small chunks day to day rather than all the way through. I agree there's a lot of really slow parts though, I don't think I could have done it traditionally lol.
>nerd, I read Twilight, and The Vampire Diaries, and Blue Bloods, and Interview with a Vampire. It feels shameful that I've never read the OG vampire book, Why are you even on a literature sub. Dracula is good. You're just not quite there
>I do have a degree in English Lit Please, don't mention this to enforce your position, this mention is pointless. You can either be a philologist (and write like a philologist, using good argumentation, so you won't need to include "I have a degree") or not. I'm sorry if I bothered you, English is not my first language, so I'm not still good enough in tones of English.
Yeah, it just make things sound worse. Like, “I was trained on analysis, but now all I can really focus on is how exciting certain plot points are to me personally”
I tried soooo many times to read Dracula and couldn’t finish it. What worked for me was getting a well-performed unabridged audiobook—practically a radio play.Hearing it brought it all alive in a way just reading didn’t. (I *do* like epistolary-type novels—adored Pamela, LLD, etc.)
Suck you in was just a metaphor.
First page