In part this review is also for myself, in case I decide to reread Dracula for a THIRD time to see if I would finally like it. If the intrusive thought crosses my mind, I hope my very own words will dissuade me from picking it up again. It's not for you, Andrea, I'm sorry, I know you like vampires but not this one.

I gave this book 2 stars because I really like the beginning, and this is something I pointed out in my first read. Despite its flaws, I think the 50% of the book (give it or take) is solid. The pacing is absurdly slow at times, but bearable. However, this changes from that point on, and this is where the story loses me.

I will limit my main criticisms to just 2: the prose and how the monster, in this case the vampire, is handled.

First of all, the prose and overall writing of the book itself. I'm not a fan of Bram Stoker. I'm sorry, but I don't think anything in the world could convince me to try another one of his works. The prose is painfully ornate, I could not even appreciate the aesthetics because, truly, it drove me to insanity and boredom. I'm familiar with Victorian literature, so no, it's not because "that's the way authors wrote back then". I wish I could offer a more thoughtful and argumented criticism, but all I can think about is how unappealing and dull the writing and the structure of the books is.

I don't think the characters were particularly well written either. Nothing about them made me connect with them, all the male characters talked and acted the same except for Van Helsing, and the women... Well, stereotypical of the time, even if Stoker felt the need to remind the reader on every page how amazing, what a nice, smart, not-like-other-girls woman Mina Harker is. It felt ridiculous, along with male characters admiring every little thing she does.

And the thing that might bother me the most: the portrayal of the monster. Now, as someone knowledgeable about this topic in 19th century literature, I can tell you there were 2 main lines in representing the non-human Other in fiction: the Other as an exterior menace, totally independent, and the Other emerging from the individual and society. Now, Dracula clearly belongs to the first current and, while it can be very interesting, it's not my favourite approach to these type of characters. Dracula and Lucy Westenra are represented as very and obviously evil and monstruous, with no soul or emotions, there is no sort of nuance, as the monster-human line is very sharply drawn. Personally, when this is done, the story renounces to explore a side of the story that could be much more interesting. When I became aware that I felt no connection to either the humans or the monster after hundreds of pages, I realised it was better to simply DNF and move on.

All respect to Dracula stans but this is not it. Again I recommend everyone to read Carmilla instead if you want to read a classic vampire story.