Dracula was way worse to read than I was expecting. Of course it's a very famous novel and this perhaps leads to more disappointment if it doesn't live up to its reputation. Knowing large parts of the story beforehand certainly does not do good things for immersion, but I still found it very tedious and the pacing was agonising at times. I also did not enjoy the journalistic narration style, which can be fine but didn't suit Dracula in my opinion. The first third or so of the book was superb but it became very difficult to get through the rest.

The scenes at the castle are fantastic and the gradual build-up of dread as Jonathan Harker discovers the true nature of Count Dracula is genuinely terrifying. Excluding this first encounter, however, the notorious vampire actually strikes this reader as a fairly innocuous threat given the ease with which he can be thwarted and ultimately defeated without giving battle. Has there even been a villain subject to so many limitations and ready remedies? This combined with the fact that he is hardly ever present in any action diminishes the count as the evil and powerful foe he should be projecting into the imagination. Also, what self-respecting villain essentially runs away for half of a book?

Overall I feel that this novel is dated and truly a product of its time lacking contemporary relevance other than the popularity of vampires. The Victorian themes of sexual repression and fear of women don't hold up too well but it's also just really conservative writing at its core and Stoker seems like he would have been a boring person. I should admit here that I don't generally 'get' the vampire phenomenon so if you are into vampires maybe you would enjoy Dracula more. Personally, I think watching 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' again would be a lot more fun.