I’ve read both, and prefer Frankenstein, but I can see why people could prefer Dracula. But I don’t enjoy epistolary novels.
I think the monster in Frankenstein is more different from the average view of him than Dracula is.
I’ve also read “The Last Man” by Shelley, a novel of everyone in the world dying of the plague. Not nearly as readable as Frankenstein, so she might not have gotten better at writing as she aged.
In one of his novels, P.G. Wodehouse had his first-person narrator say (loosely paraphrased) “When I’m writing one of these accounts, I’m always a little at a loss as to how much scenery I should bung in.” He was obviously referring to descriptions of the setting, whether indoors or outdoors. Should he describe the wind in his hair, the bugs in his teeth, the villages flying past, as he drove the two-seater out to the country to help Gussie Fink-Nottle out of a jam? That sort of thing.
I can’t recall how the problem was generally resolved, but I can tell you this: Mrs. Shelley and Mr. Stoker both chose wrongly when confronted with similar dilemmas. And THAT should be a sufficient answer to the question “Why not read them?”
Read both, like both.
Especially since the monster is really the doctor, not his creation.
Two words. Universal. Pictures.
Ehh.
I tend to think of monsters as usually more purpose-driven. They mean to wreak whatever havoc gets wrought. Med Student Frankenstein is more the gormless and irresponsible type.
BTW, I have read them both.
I’ve read both and recall enjoying both. It’s been too many years for me to give any kind of critique except to reiterate, as others have implied, that Universal Pictures have done an injustice to both.
I’ve read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus and it was a helluva read and quite the departure from the rectangular head with car-battery terminals. Recommended.
Don’t remember reading Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
I feel that I should also point out that Dracula is quite a short book and, to the extent that it isn’t “fast enough” or “exciting enough” for a modern day reader, I guess I don’t know what books outside of Tom Clancy might be faster to get to the point and wrap it all up, than Dracula - particularly given that your average modern novel is probably 2-4 times the length of Dracula.
It is probably in the second tier of exciting books that have ever been written but, particularly for its era, with books like Crime and Punishment and Pere Goriot, Dracula is decidedly waaaaaay more exciting and thrilling than basically everything else being written at the same moment in time. And it’s still a lot more thrilling than most books being written today, including authors like Mercedes Lackey, Cormack McCarthy, Andrew Vachss, etc. The first tier of exciting books is not that thick a tier and still excludes most of everything written, even in modern day.
This shouldn’t be taken as a recommendation for Dracula. It’s not a must-read by any means. I just find it a bit bizarre to find so many people dumping on the book for being slow. I can only imagine that these are people who were forced to read it for school - which pretty much always makes it impossible to get through and enjoy the work you’re reading, due to the unnatural reading rhythm.
It isn’t all that short, at 400 pages or so (usually) and about 160,000 words. Four times as long and we’re talking about quite a hefty tome.
Hmm… Checking my bookshelves, I can’t find the book. (I must have gotten rid of it at some point.)
Checking Amazon, I see copies listed from 236 pages to 672 pages (though most seem to be in the 320 range). I remember my copy being quite slender on the shelf, so I’m wondering if maybe I had a condensed edition.
So I’ll amend my statement to be, “If you have the condensed version, it’s quite speedy and enjoyable!”
Me too.
On the other hand, I’ve read Dracula a couple of times as a teen and must’ve enjoyed it.
I’ve read both, many years ago.
Frankenstein (1818) is among the first horror books. Edgar Allen Poe was born 1809. I’d guess he was influenced by Shelley’s writing.
Dracula came much later in 1897. Long after Poe died in 1849.
I remember Dracula was easier to read and it captured my interest.
Frankenstein is older and more difficult prose. It is an epistolary novel. I have no interest in reading it again.
Hmm… Checking my bookshelves, I can’t find the book. (I must have gotten rid of it at some point.)
Checking Amazon, I see copies listed from 236 pages to 672 pages (though most seem to be in the 320 range). I remember my copy being quite slender on the shelf, so I’m wondering if maybe I had a condensed edition.
So I’ll amend my statement to be, “If you have the condensed version, it’s quite speedy and enjoyable!”
We read Frankenstein in high school and I don’t remember it at all. I read Dracula after Coppola’s version came out, which was when I learned it was told from different perspectives.
I have not read Dracula but I have read Frankenstein mainly because it is considered to be the first science fiction novel. It was a drudge.
Same here.
Indeed. Frankenstein is more about the moral horror of a man playing God and the implications both for humanity and for his creation. There isn’t a lot of gore and action. Dracula is more of a gothic thriller (for its time), with blood and dead bodies and remote castles and so forth.
By modern horror novel standards both are very tame, but for their time they’re both excellent. And both are better than Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, which I found clumsier than even Frankenstein in its moralizing on the human condition.
I took a Science Fiction Literature class in high school and we read Frankenstein and explored its themes as one of the earliest science fiction novels (we were taught it was “the first” but I’m not willing to defend that). I remember it being somewhat interesting in that context although the story itself was a bit plodding to my modern sensibilities.
Never read Dracula. I probably assumed that it would read a lot like Frankenstein did.
I’ve read both, but I much much preferred Dracula. There are some eerie parts in all the florid Victorian verbosity. Little bits of it have always sort of haunted me. (I asked a few people over the years, how did they think Dracula was dispatched, and every one of them was surprised when I told them!) I did read Frankenstein, found it more tough sledding, but then I have always preferred Dracula movies over Frankenstein movies.
Read *Frankenstein *in high school, remember absolutely nothing of it. Read *Dracula *about five years ago, loved it.
I’ll second CalMeacham’s endorsement of Leonard Wolf’s Annotated Dracula. The annotations are better than the text (and occasionally point and laugh at Stoker’s writing, like Van Helsing’s variable accent). But they also point out some subtleties that you might otherwise miss – like what things are happening simultaneously, as sourced from 2 different accounts.