• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Bram Stoker: Dracula

i love dracula, i also find the ending a little abrupt, but still very enjoyable
didnt expected it to be so good, now i want to read other novels by bram stoker, especially the jewel of seven starts. but havent been lucky as to find it on my local library :(

recently i watched shadow of the vampire, and this quote stuck on my mind

---------
[Asked what he thought of the book, Dracula]
Max Schreck: It made me sad.
Albin: Why sad?
Max Schreck: Because Dracula had no servants.
Albin: I think you missed the point of the book, Count Orlock.
Max Schreck: Dracula hasn't had servants in 400 years and then a man comes to his ancestral home, and he must convince him that he... that he is like the man. He has to feed him, when he himself hasn't eaten food in centuries. Can he even remember how to buy bread? How to select cheese and wine? And then he remembers the rest of it. How to prepare a meal, how to make a bed. He remembers his first glory, his armies, his retainers, and what he is reduced to. The loneliest part of the book comes... when the man accidentally sees Dracula setting his table.
----------
 
lenny nero said:
I got the impression that the people loved him for keeping out the invaders but feared him for his monstrous cruelty.
We really only learnt about the monstrous cruelty in school, and so I got the impression that he was a rather sadistic, unpopular ruler. I guess "two sides to every story" and such applies here. I think that I might do a bit more reading up about him.
 
Well let's see:... the things i heard about him:... he upheld justice in the country, kept the country safe from outlaws and such... the legend sais that there was a gold cup on the side of the well in the center of the city and all travellers could use it to drink from the well... noone ever stole it of course because they feared the king... well anyway legend goes that the people knew when Vlad Tepes died when the cup dissapeared. So i guess yes he was cruel but mostly towards the people who didn't uphold justice or towards invadors. The storyes potraying him ah a blood-thirsty beast are mostly a result of his enemy's propaganda.
 
here's some info on him
Vlad Tepes was born in November or December 1431, in the fortress of Sighisoara, Romania. His father, Vlad Dracul, at that time appointed military governor of Transylvania by the emperor Sigismund, had been inducted into the Order of the Dragon about one year before. The order - which could be compared to the Knights of the Hospital of St. John or even to the Teutonic Order of Knights - was a semimilitary and religious society, originally created in 1387 by the Holy Roman Emperor and his second wife, Barbara Cilli. The main goals of such a secret fraternal order of knights was mainly to protect the interests of Catholicism, and to crusade against the Turks. There are different reasons why this society is so important to us. First, it provides an explanation for the name "Dracula;" "Dracul," in Romanian language, means "Dragon", and the boyars of Romania, who knew of Vlad Tepes' father induction into the Order of the Dragon, decided to call him "Dracul." "Dracula," a diminutive which means "the son of Dracul," was a surname to be used ultimately by Vlad Tepes. A second major role of this Order as a source of inspiration for Stoker's evil character is the Order's official dress - a black cape over a red garment - to be worn only on Fridays or during the commemoration of Christ's Passion.

In the winter of 1436-1437, Dracul became prince of Wallachia (one of the three Romanian provinces) and took up residence at the palace of Tirgoviste, the princely capital. Vlad Tepes followed his father and lived six years at the princely court. In 1442, for political reasons, Dracula and his younger brother Radu were taken hostage by the Sultan Murad II; Dracula was held in Turkey until 1448, while his brother Radu decided to stay there until 1462. This Turkish captivity surely played an important role in Dracula's upbringing; it must be at this period that he adopted a very pessimistic view of life. Indeed, the Turks set him free after informing him of his father's assassination in 1447 - organized by Vladislav II. He also learned about his older brother's death - Mircea was the eldest legitimate son of Dracul - and how he had been tortured and buried alive by the boyars of Tirgoviste.

At 17 years old, Vlad Tepes Dracula, supported by a force of Turkish cavalry and a contingent of troops lent to him by pasha Mustafa Hassan, made his first major move toward seizing the Wallachian throne. But another claimant, no other than Vladislav II himself, defeated him only two months later. In order to secure his second and major reign over Wallachia, Dracula had to wait until July of 1456, when he had the satisfaction of killing his mortal enemy and his father's assassin. Vlad then began his longest reign - 6 years - during which he committed many cruelties, and hence established his controversed reputation.

His first major act of revenge was aimed at the boyars of Tirgoviste for the killing of his father and his brother Mircea. On Easter Sunday of what we believe to be 1459, he arrested all the boyar families who had participated to the princely feast. He impaled the older ones on stakes while forcing the others to march from the capital to the town of Poenari. This fifty-mile trek was quite grueling, and those who survived were not permitted to rest until they reached destination. Dracula then ordered them to build him a fortress on the ruins of an older outpost overlooking the Arges river. Many died in the process, and Dracula therefore succeeded in creating a new nobility and obtaining a fortress for future emergencies. What is left today of the building is identified as Castle Dracula.

Vlad became quite known for his brutal punishment techniques; he often ordered people to be skinned, boiled, decapitated, blinded, strangled, hanged, burned, roasted, hacked, nailed, buried alive, stabbed, etc. He also liked to cut off noses, ears, sexual organs and limbs. But his favorite method was impalement on stakes, hence the surname "Tepes" which means "The Impaler" in the Romanian language. Even the Turks referred to him as "Kaziglu Bey," meaning "The Impaler Prince." It is this technique he used in 1457, 1459 and 1460 against Transylvanian merchants who had ignored his trade laws. The raids he led against the German Saxons of Transylvania were also acts of proto-nationalism in order to protect and favour the Wallachian commerce activities.

There are many anecdotes about the philosophy of Vlad Tepes Dracula. He was for instance particularly known throughout his land for his fierce insistence on honesty and order. Almost any crime, from lying and stealing to killing, could be punished by impalement. Being so confident in the effectiveness of his law, Dracula placed a golden cup on display in the central square of Tirgoviste. The cup could be used by thirsty travelers, but had to remain on the square. According to the available historic sources, it was never stolen and remained entirely unmolested throughout Vlad's reign. Dracula was also very concerned that all his subjects work and be productive to the community. He looked upon the poor, vagrants and beggars as thieves. Consequently, he invited all the poor and sick of Wallachia to his princely court in Tirgoviste for a great feast. After the guests ate and drank, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. No one survived.

In the beginning of 1462, Vlad launched a campaign against the Turks along the Danube river. It was quite risky, the military force of Sultan Mehmed II being by far more powerful than the Wallachian army. However, during the winter of 1462, Vlad was very successful and managed to gain many victories. To punish Dracula, the Sultan decided to launch a full-scale invasion of Wallachia. Of course, his other goal was to transform this land into a Turkish province and he entered Wallachia with an army three times larger than Dracula's. Finding himself without allies, Vlad, forced to retreat towards Tirgoviste, burned his own villages and poisoned the wells along the way, so that the Turkish army would find nothing to eat or drink. Moreover, when the Sultan, exhausted, finally reached the capital city, he was confronted by a most gruesome sight: thousands of stakes held the remaining carcasses of some 20,000 Turkish captives, a horror scene which was ultimately nicknamed the "Forest of the Impaled." This terror tactic deliberately stage-managed by Dracula was definitely successful; the scene had a strong effect on Mehmed's most stout-hearted officers, and the Sultan, tired and hungry, admitted defeat (it is worth mentioning that even Victor Hugo, in his Legende des Siecles, recalls this particular incident). Nevertheless, following his retreat from Wallachian territory, Mehmed left the next phase of the battle to Vlad's younger brother Radu, the Turkish favorite for the Wallachian throne. At the head of a Turkish army and joined by Vlad's detractors, Radu pursued his brother to Poenari castle on the Arges river.

According to the legend, this is when Dracula's wife, in order to escape Turkish capture, committed suicide by hurling herself from the upper battlements, her body falling down the precipice into the river below - a scene exploited by Francis Ford Coppola's production. Vlad, who was definitely not the kind of man to kill himself, managed to escape the siege of his fortress by using a secret passage into the mountain. Helped by some peasants of the Arefu village, he was able to reach Transylvania where he met the new king of Hungary, Matthias Corvinus. However, instead of providing some help, Matthias arrested Dracula and imprisoned him at the Hungarian capital of Visegrad. It was not until 1475 that Vlad was again recognized as the prince of Wallachia, enjoying a very short third reign. In fact, he was assassinated toward the end of December 1476.

We do not know exactly why Bram Stoker chose this fifteenth century Romanian prince as a model for his fictional character. Some scholars have proposed that Stoker had a friendly relationship with a Hungarian professor from the University of Budapest, Arminius Vambery (Hermann Vamberger) , and it is likely that this man gave Stoker some information about Vlad Tepes Dracula. Moreover, the fact that Dr. Abraham Van Helsing mentions his "friend Arminius" in the 1897 novel as the source of his knowledge on Vlad seems to support this hypothesis. It should also be kept in mind that the only real link between the historical Dracula (1431-1476) and the modern literary myth of the vampire is in fact the 1897 novel; Stoker made use of folkloric sources, historic references and some of his own life experiences to create his composite creature. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that Vlad Dracula's political detractors - mainly German Saxons - made use of the other meaning of the Romanian word "Dracul" - "Devil" - in order to blacken the prince's reputation. Could the association of the words "Dragon" and "Devil" in Romanian language explain an earlier link between Vlad Tepes and vampirism?
 
Dracula has to be my favourite book. By a very long way. I finished it at about 4 in the morning. Though 'wow', then picked it up and read it 2 more times during the next day.
 
BenjaminDixon said:
Dracula has to be my favourite book. By a very long way. I finished it at about 4 in the morning. Though 'wow', then picked it up and read it 2 more times during the next day.
What about the book appealed to you?
 
I read Dracula some years back and I can't say that I was too impressed. Bram Stoker seemed somewhat unsure with the direction he was taking the novel and the Journal system for chapters came off as awkward at times. On a completely unrelated note, I find it interesting somebody mentioned Diana Gabaldon as an author they're reading now, she's an alumni of my university and we even have a dormitory named after her.
 
I really loved the suspense in Dracula, the way that the plot was conveyed by form of various media. Any descriptions of Dracula were artistic and tasteful. He always lurked in the shadows. One part that baffled me was that the girl in the story - Jenny, I think ( though I really should know) - died in about 20 pages of description. Our good old Dracula died in 2 lines! That's it! TWO LINES !
 
mojo said:
Cool, who's it by? Would definately be interested in reading that...

The book is written by Marie Kiraly. According to barnesandnoble.com, it's out of print. Maybe you could try your local library...?

I did some more research: Marie Kiraly was a pseudonym used by author Elaine Bergstrom (Blood Rites). Supposedly it was reissued several years ago, though I'm not sure if that edition is in print.
 
I'll admit it, classics usually bore me. Back in 2000-2001 I was on a big classics kick and plowed through book after book. I was more interested in crossing books off of a list than really enjoying them. Since then, I have pretty much sworn off of the classics, sticking instead to books written in the last 25 years.

Well, after reading The Historian, I decided to check out Dracula and was very pleasantly surprised. The flow was great, the story progressed well, and the characters were very well developed. I really enjoyed the format that Stoker used as well. I'll agree with those above that the ending was anti-climactic, but I think that this book along with Lolita may be pulling me back into the classics. Before you know it, I'll be giving Ulysses another try.

I give it a 7/10.
 
Just, finally, finished Dracula. An uneven work. Some of it was beautiful and some of it was very awkward. I found the ending anti-climatic, there was no final battle, just a chase for a box of sand. Glad I read it but it did not meet my expectations. 3.75/5
 
The fact that the story is told in letters, diaries, newspapers and other texts, will kill the impact off any tense situation: if you're writing a letter about it, it's because you made it; if you're writing an entry in your diary, it's because it's already happened. There's no feeling of being there as it happens.

In that aspect, Coppola's movie is better.
 
I liked Coppola's version very much, despite some atrocious acting (Keanu Reeves trying to do a British accent?! Whatever.) and strange costume designs. The film with Frank Langella isn't bad either, even though it differs greatly from Stoker's original novel.
 
The fact that the story is told in letters, diaries, newspapers and other texts, will kill the impact off any tense situation: if you're writing a letter about it, it's because you made it; if you're writing an entry in your diary, it's because it's already happened. There's no feeling of being there as it happens.

In that aspect, Coppola's movie is better.

There's that and there's also the fact that what happened was a bore. It wasn't a very satisfying final scene.
 
I just went to see the ballet performed by Brandywine Ballet Company at West Chester University and it was AWSOME! Thing is, I never realized that Dracula was really a love story, at least that was the interpretation in the ballet. So now I will have to read the book. Usually I read the book first but I had no interest until I saw the ballet. I rented (by mistake) the wrong movie version with Jack Palance playing Dracula. It was awful. I want to see Coppola's version as I heard that was the best and stays mostly within the paramaters of the story. And mr_michel - thanks for all the info. It was very helpful to me.
 
Ballets are always love stories. Not sure Dracula is. Certainly there are close husband wife relationships but are they the purpose of the story?
 
I think the purpose of Dracula's trip to London is lost in the complex network of a rather long and slow-paced plot. I think John Sutherland devotes a chapter to the Count's motives in Is Heatcliff a Murderer?: Great Puzzles in Nineteenth-Century Fiction.

But the love story was added by the film versions. Of all, I'd say Coppola's is the one that adds it with more panache, basically putting the plot of Vertigo into the movie. Being a romantic fool myself, I do prefer to think of the Count as this tortured soul who waits hundreds of years for his beloved one to return :rolleyes:
 
I finished this book a couple weeks ago. The beggining was wonderful, but as I progressed, I found that it got duller as there was less mystery and more of just people freaking out and weird sicknesses and doctors....and the climax did seem to be a bit of an anticlimax. However, I enjoyed the book and am looking forward to reading the historian(i'm on a vampire book swing right now).
 
I read the translation of Bram Stoker's Dracula and saw the movie (where kauno reeves played as Jonathon Harker).

I think you will laugh at me because I really feel sorry for Count Dracula.
 
Bram Stoker's Dracula

I recently ordered this book and would like to know how it is before I get it. But spoilers would be a little irritating so put the spoiler thingies around any main storyline part.
 
Back
Top