Yes it is very easy to read because it is broken down into tiny little bites - letters, diary entries etc. You can pace yourself much differently reading a book like Dracula than you can with any others. There may be things that you do not understand - the blue lights for instance - but you can always come here and ask (or write to me or one of the others who has taught the book). You will find that on the whole Dracula IS a metaphor for European Imperialism over Africa and in particular India - but once you know that, you are halfway home. Just read - mark things you dont understand and ask. I admire your desire to want to read and understand such an important work. I am always here to help you. Go ahead and order it - and enjoy. It is a wonderfully rich and intriguing story told in a very unique fashion. Pax - C.
PS Dont listen to someone who tells you to get an abridged modern version or to skip pages - read Stoker's words and read them all. The first part - Harker's experiences in Transylvania may be hard to get into but they are vital to the story and once you get the hang of it, it is a very interesting part of the story. (The blue lights are in that part too!)
2007-04-17 10:42:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Persiphone_Hellecat 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a classic. Everything you know about Dracula the vampire from books or movies all borrowed their ideas from this book. I liked this book and no, it doesn't have a lot of metaphors like Shakespeare although it is pretty straight foward that you wonder if it is a metaphor or not. I liked the book, and if your into the whole gothic, vampire, creepy kinds of books, you'll like this one. But one thing I didn't like about it is that most everything, if not the whole book, is written in a couple perspectives as well as in letter form, the main characters are writing letters, and thats the book. It was still good.
2007-04-17 10:36:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chaun 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I read Bram Stoker's Dracula when I was around twelve or thirteen years old. I had no problem reading and understanding. Now that I'm quite a bit older, I think it an awesome book and you should definitely think you should order it and read it. It's one of the classics.
2007-04-17 10:44:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rachel 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've read different versions of Dracula but Bram Stoker's is a classic, and thus classically written.
I found it hard to get into and found myself skipping pages. Once you've watched the movie though, it doesn't matter too much about reading the book.
Try a more modern version, you might find it easier to read and understand.
2007-04-17 10:40:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Karina 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Overall it is a pretty easy to understand book. The middle section dealing with Lucy and Dracula is very long and overly drawn out, but it is not difficult to understand. Dracula is probably more advanced than the cheap literature of today, but it is much more easy to comprehend than Shakespeare.
2007-04-17 10:39:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mr. Taco 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I study Dracula I cherished in even though it incredibly is been awhile when you consider that I study it . I went by a vampire point with Anne Rice., Salem's Lot via Stephen King after which I basically lost activity. I even have tried to study Twilight yet can no longer get by it. Vampire legend is fantasy mixed up with communion. human beings incredibly concept they have been ingesting blood and it became right into a grievance of early Christians. it incredibly is Christianity long previous ghoulish yet somewhat timber in the path of the chest permitting them to relax finally. Christian
2016-10-22 10:58:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In terms of difficulty it is a step up from more modern literature, but it isn't completely uncomprehensible, and it is actually a really amazing and exciting book. Definately order it.
2007-04-17 10:33:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have a little something for those who actually READ the book...
Why ruin a good movie by reading the book?
;)
2007-04-17 10:38:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋