Dracula is perhaps almost as interesting regarded historically as the product of a specific time as it is engaging to continuing generations of readers in a 'timeless' fashion. In her introduction Byron first discusses the famous novel as an ...
expression not of universal fears and desires but of specifically late nineteenth-century concerns. At the same time she is entirely attuned to the ways in which, however much Dracula is a Victorian text, Dracula is a very twentieth-century character, a representative of modernity and of the future.
Movies have ruined some of the gothic romantic flair that this book has. Reading this book made me wish that I had not already seen so many vampire movies that have clouded up my judgement of a vampire.
I read this book because I love the language used in the 1800s, and it left me amazed indeed.But, having already read Frankenstein, it also left me a bit disappointed. I think Mary Shelley has done a much better job giving psychological depth to herI read this book because I love the language used in the 1800s, and it left me amazed indeed. But, having already read Frankenstein, it also left me a bit disappointed. I think Mary Shelley has done a much better job giving psychological depth to her characters (both "good" and "evil" though I believe there are no such concepts in her work), giving action and movement to the story but also well studied and meaningful pauses, giving a stark significance to her words, than Bram Stoker. I mean, the characters are of an incredible flatness: they don't develope or grow with the unravelling of the mystery behind all the sequence of hideous events, they don't even seem to feel anything at all, and they are clearly Very Good or Very Evil. In this sense, it is a very boring novel. Also, the second part of the story is really annoying with all the transcriptions of useless harangues by Van Helsing, in which it is also difficult to understand the point. Most of the times, it was Mina's two lines summaries of the endless speeches who let me see the point of it all, and it wasn't even a real point since it only was "God help us all, we must fight back the evil". YES but when are you gonna fight it back for real? I'm not one who only looks for action, but whole chapters of repetitions of the same plan over and over again would annoy the most patient reader in the world. I just understood you have to track all the boxes down, but, Jesus Christ, just do it without telling me how many frigging times you all have been having that damn breakfast that occurred I think at least two times in every chapter. And, if a chapter is composed by extracts from many different diaries, could you tell the same event only ONCE and not by the point of view of five different characters? I think there are also three characters who didn't need to be in the story at all: the two female vampires and Renfield, whose story I especially hated since it all had no point apart from letting the vampire into Seward's house. Was telling all his zoophagia story really needed? I don't think so. By the way, many passages were really frightening and thrilling, especially in the first part, were Jonathan Harker is by himself in the Castle. I really liked the part in which he finds the Count in the crib. Anyway, I wouldn't recommend it....Continua Nascondi
Bello e coinvolgente grazie alla struttura in lettere che conferisce senso di veridicità a tutto il racconto. A tratti un pò lento, effetto forse voluto dall'autore per suscitare maggiore enfasi nei momenti clou. In generale un must per gliBello e coinvolgente grazie alla struttura in lettere che conferisce senso di veridicità a tutto il racconto. A tratti un pò lento, effetto forse voluto dall'autore per suscitare maggiore enfasi nei momenti clou. In generale un must per gli amanti del romanzo gotico....Continua Nascondi
"Da tempo ci eravamo abituati a vigilare sull’alba e sul tramonto, tanto che avevamo imparato a riconoscere con esattezza il loro approssimarsi: sapevamo quindi che ormai mancava poco al calare del sole"