While this is definitely a Should Read novel-- after all, the character of Dracula is firmly entrenched in our culture-- I came away from it mildly disappointed. While the epistolary quality is a fun way to get inside the minds of the various characters, I never became comfortable with its inherent misogyny. The women are either pillars of virtue or shameless vixens, and the men's responses to female sexuality are either to possess the woman, kill her, or protect her. This is clearly a response to the time in which it was written, when women were beginning to show their discontent with being merely decorations.

Stoker also shows his (or perhaps his culture's) fear of the other through the constant assertions that London is the center of the civilized world and those places further east are barbaric and backwards. However, this is still essential reading as it's important to get this influential story from the original source and not one of several over-sexed, over-dramatized Hollywood versions.

Bram Stoker's influential late-Victorian novel remains a dominant presence in the realm of horror and vampire literature. While some modern readers may have difficulty with the late 19th-century writing style, the novel itself is a rewarding experience for anyone willing to consider the work, and the use of language should not be held against its brilliance.

Though not the first word in vampire literature and mythology, Stoker's novel is, in a way, the last word - and one very much so worth reading.

I loved this novel; the story was well written and I was even frightened at times as to the detail and the images of the greatest vampire of all time. I would strongly encourage evertbody to read this wonderful classic.

This is a sort of a compendium of all tales about vampires surely the author was able to find at his times. And although I don't know English deeply, it seems only a regular novel, mediocre in strict literary sense.
But a novel isn't only literary language, and "Dracula" has some valors not to disdain.
First, there are a collision between old delayed continental Europe, origin of Dracula, symbol of evil, and modern England in full industrial revolution. Gramophones, telegraphs and other machines hardly exits in Transylvania, but abounds in Britain. It's said Bram Stoker wrote this novel with a typewriter, by then a novelty.
But Stoker lacks romanticism. In this sense, some of the several films about Dracula surpasses this novel in that.
However, the author does hit in some facets; one is disquieting: Dracula only is able to enter in your house if you invite him to do.
Another is the forces of goodness, as professor Van Helsing, Lucy, never resource to official authorities as police. Very British I think, as Dracula is a big peril, but... is his own private peril an enemy, and they achieve well the problem by themselves.

The greatest testament to Stoker's work is that it remains uniquely compelling despite popular conceptions shaped by some appalling cinematic adapdations. Even now, it is possible to understand the enthusiatic response of contemporary readers to his sensational tale of "the Undead" and the hardy souls who take on the eponymous Count. From the chilling opening in the Carpathians, Stoker relates his grimly fascinating tale mainly through diary extracts, also managing the tricky task of creating authentically different narrative voices. Add to the equation some masterful prose, a relentless pace and some genuinely shocking moments and the result is a novel that genuinely deserves the title of "classic".

This book will make you throw rocks at ALL the 'Dracula' movies you have seen or had wanted to see. The words, the epistolary format, the story, the darkness, the horror, the sensuality are all there for you if you dare. I loved this book and recommend it. My Top 10 seems to be crowded and always changing but this book could be a candidate.

Having not read Dracula in years, I decided to read it again and compare it to a contemporary (1992) movie version...Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" starring Gary Oldman. When I initially read the story as a child, I focused more on my stereotyped "Dracula as performed by Bella Lugosi" and not Stoker's original version. Reading it again I was charmed by the writing style and mores of the times. It holds up well. I then watched Coppola's movie which was tarted up and sexualized for today's audience. While Oldman's performance was great fun to watch, the book is so much better. And if I were Stoker, I would be turning in my grave since the movie version barely follows the book and yet is "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

I read this book when I was a teenager. No movie version has even come close to the weirdness and creepyness of this great book. Because of the journal form the book takes you find yourself forgeting that it's a work of fiction at times. That's when you just get totally freaked out.

Surprisingly "Denn die Toten reiten schnell" or "For the dead travel fast" is more than an opening line to this tale of love in the dangerous moon light. After watching several Drac movies and a few Nosferatu's, I pretty much though I had a handle on the genera. Little did I know what a wonderful world of mystery and suspense that Bram Stoker opened up for me.

The story is told mostly third party though the papers, diaries, and phonograph recordings (on wax calendars) of those people involve in a tale so bizarre that it almost defies belief. The general story line is that of a Count that plans to move to a more urban setting (from Borgo Pass to London) where there is a richer diet. There he finds succulent women; something he can sing his teeth in. Unfortunately for him a gang of ruffians (including a real-estate agent, asylum director, Texas cowboy and an Old Dutch abnormal psychologist) is out to detour his nocturnal munching. They think they have Drac on the run but with a wing and a prayer he is always one step ahead.

Of more value to the reader is the rich prose chosen by Stoker as he describes the morals and technology of the time. We have to come to grips with or decide if we can perform the rituals that are required to eliminate vampires verses the impropriety of opening graves and staking loved ones. The powers in the book differ from the movie versions in that they are more of persuasion and capabilities to manipulate the local weather. At one point the Dutch Dr. Van Helsing, is so overwhelmed by a beautiful vampire laying in the grave that he almost for gets why he is there and may become vamp chow.

All in all the story is more in the cunning chase. And the question as to will they succeed or will Dracula triumph. Remember "For the dead travel fast."

If you have any interest in horror fiction generally, or the vampire genre particularly, then naturally Stoker's classic is required reading. But you might as well be warned as to what you are in for. The early chapters, where Harker is trapped in Dracula's castle, are truly great! However, once the Count gets to London, things start to slow down, or even become downright annoying. I had a particular dislike for the obnoxious Van Helsing and his band of effete upper-class male heroes. I would have been much happier if Dracula had turned the bunch into vampires, and it had been left to Mina, Lucy and Renfield to stake the lot. Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN holds up much better as classic horror fiction.

I wish I could recommend a better vampire novel, but, sadly, vampire novels are mostly trash, and much of the genre is now devoted to sick pornography. Better, in some ways, are Steven King's 'SALEM'S LOT, Sheridan Le Fanu's CARMILLA, and and Anne Rice's INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (avoid the sequels), but none of them have anything that can substitute for the opening chapters of DRACULA.