Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised with Dracula. It definitely wasn't something we would clarify as horror by today's standards, but compared to other classics I was forced to read in high school I thought Dracula was pretty decent. It is very slow though, but I think that's just the way people used to write, whereas today we like instant gratification

Read Phantom of the Opera before I went to see the musical. Glad I did as the extra information from the book gave me context for scenes that I may have misunderstood. Plus I have horrible comprehension when it comes to musicals so it let me follow along even when I didnt catch all the words from a song or dialogue. Loved both the book and musical. The opening theme was used as a huge chandelier was revealed, it was an incredible moment.

To anyone other than OP interested in reading the book, I recommend Dracula Daily. To quote its website:

"Bram Stoker’s Dracula is an epistolary novel - it’s made up of letters, diaries, telegrams, newspaper clippings - and every part of it has a date. The whole story happens between May 3 and November 10. So: Dracula Daily will post a newsletter each day that something happens to the characters, in the same timeline that it happens to them.

Now you can read the book via email, in small digestible chunks - as it happens to the characters."

It's too late to start this year, but I think they do it every year.

‘Writing that today would get you fired.’

From what?

Like, how do you think being a novelist works?

I do this too. I just finished The Three Musketeers because I have tickets to a theatre production in November. I thought it started off okay, I was pretty unimpressed with d'Artagnan. But half way through I thought it got really good. Now I'm just hoping the show sticks to the first book because I don't have time to read the rest of the trilogy. I find knowing the story ahead of time adds to the enjoyment of live shows, you can see what's been adapted and omitted for the stage.

>In fact the, last third is a turd. It's so anticlimactic. Writing that ending today would get you fired.

Welp, there's your problem. You're judging a 100+ year old novel by today's standards.

I really enjoyed Dracula (the book) but I agree, when I think of my favourite moments the ending doesn't come up. The fate of the Demeter, John's stay at the castle and Dracula's mind games, the oddly hilarious bit where Dracula has to steal a dopey domesticated wolf from a zoo because he can't summon an army of them in London, and basically every time a male character finally explains anything to Mina and she instantly comes up with a good idea. Those are the bits I like.

My city is performing the Dracula ballet this weekend, and I'm going to see it Saturday! I am so excited! I wanted to read the book first, but with grad school, I've not had the time. But so excited, nonetheless!

I freaking love the Dracula ballet. It drives me nuts my local ballet only does it like once a decade.

I first read Dracula when I was in my late teens because Castlevania: Symphony of the Night had come out and it was awesome. I thought Dracula was just too old timey for me to understand(the ye olde tyme words and way of speaking didn't help). Fast forward about 15 years and I reread Dracula and it turns out it was just bad.

I mean, not intolerably so, it was still entertaining, but my patience can only wear so thin before I want to throw the book across the room because Helsing knows exactly what's going on but refuses to fucking tell anyone and lets the woman he was called in to protect die because of his silence.

Purely by accident, I read The Martian just a few months before the movie came out. It was nice being able to compare and contrast with the book fresh in my mind. The movie held up amazingly well, IMHO. It skipped or glossed over some bits that had I liked, presumably to cut running time, but nothing that was indispensable or damaged the overall story. Hard sci-fi is so incredibly rare in cinema; The Martian and 2001 are the only decent ones I've seen.

I just finished the book yesterday. As far as classics go, I think Dracula holds up better than most.

The book provides a really good window into the world of 1897. Blood transfusions had been around long enough to be widely known, but were still considered dangerous. Blood types hadn't been discovered yet. Telephones had only existed for 20 years, and weren't widely available. So this was the peak era of the telegraph. Society and culture placed high value on excellence. The concept of dressing down (clothing, language, standards) was absurd. It was unthinkable to involve women in dangerous affairs.

I have the same problem reading Victor Hugo. I actually really like his storytelling and characters, but the 50 page digressions on Parisian architecture annoy the hell out of me. It makes sense to me that this might have been an enjoyable way to stretch a book out in a time when travel and entertainment opportunities were limited, but I absolutely hate it.

I'm going to have to reread. I don't recall it being that boring.

Mostly I recall the powerful imagery he drew in key scenes. That and being offended by that caricature of a Texan which I guess he >!threw on the altar because he had to off somebody to give the ending more meaning.!<

I am actually reading it right now for the first time after reading Salems lot. I am halfway through. Should have read it before Stephen King but it is not that bad.

Van Helsing is just getting on my nerves with his constant „I can’t tell you now, you will see“ and his ramblings without saying anything.

Also I catch myself skipping whole paragraphs and chapters. The story is good but I agree it should be way shorter.

I forced myself through Dracula just to get it over with, but that won't be happening again.