Classics of Horror: Dracula Frankenstein by Bram Stoker

Classics of Horror: Dracula Frankenstein Reviews

• 
  Jennifer

  4.5 stars (for Frankenstein).
• 
  Joseph R.

  This classic horror novel needs no introduction but does need some clarification. The Universal Horror Film version of the monster has become ubiquitous in Western culture and overshadows the depiction of the creature in the novel. The mute, zombie-like Boris Karloff incarnation is physically similar to but lacks the persuasiveness, cunning, and agility of the book's monster. The monster learns to speak and is quite eloquent and self-aware, especially of his needs for a companion. The book has a different story and a much closer link between the doctor and his creation.
  
  The parallel between Victor Frankenstein and the monster is fascinating. Frankenstein has great ambition and curiosity. He wants to be a great scientist but gets off on the wrong foot in his youth by reading Paracelsus and other (unknown to Frankenstein) scientifically discredited writers. When he goes to university, some professors mock him for reading worthless trash. One teacher takes pity on him and helps guide him to more fruitful learning. Frankenstein keeps his desire to create life hidden even from his greatest sympathizers (i.e., that professor and his family). He works alone and eventually has success, a success that horrifies him so much that he flees his own lab. He can't face what he's done now that he can see it more clearly. He goes home to recover from the stress.
  
  The newly-awakened monster also flees the lab. He struggles to understand the world around him and receives no help at all from anyone. People who see him are revolted by his appearance and always choose the "fight" part of the primitive "fight or flight" response. The monster eventually finds an isolated cabin with a father and two adult children. He listens to their conversations, learning a language and how people normally interact. He chops wood for them at night and is an unseen benefactor, just as he benefits from them. When he finally reveals himself to the father (who is blind and so does not have an immediate negative reaction), he almost makes a human connection. Then the son and daughter return and the son beats on the monster. The monster is forced to flee again. He discovers who his true creator is and goes to the Frankenstein home in hopes of finding a sympathetic creator. The monster persuades Frankenstein to make him a female companion so that he won't be alone and won't cause problems for Frankenstein and the rest of humanity. He's killed Frankenstein's younger brother and put the blame on an innocent woman who is executed, so the monster has already demonstrated a malicious cunning that could (and does) make Frankenstein's life miserable.
  
  Both Frankenstein and the monster are in desperate need of other people in their lives to support them. The doctor has had mixed responses from the academics; the creature has had nothing but hard treatment from anyone. The monster goes to the only person he thinks might help him; the doctor seeks out no help with his problems (either creating another monster or getting rid of the monster he has created), even though he has a loving family and an academic friend who would give the assistance he needs. If Frankenstein had shown care and support to his creation, the story would be very different. Both need genuine love and affection in their lives. The creature does not have it because everyone else cannot see past his physical deformity. Frankenstein has it but is unwilling to be completely honest with anyone, so he can't benefit from their love in any way other than superficial. Frankenstein is clearly culpable; the monster is more a victim of circumstance (though he has culpability too).
  
  The book is an amazing look at obsession and the need for love. The central characters struggle with each other and with themselves but cannot win. Their main problem is isolation, self-imposed in Frankenstein's case. A lot of the horror was avoidable. Making bad choices spirals out of control and leads to a tragic ending.
  
  Highly recommended.
  
  Check out the discussion on
  A Good Story is Hard to Find Podcast 125.
• 
  Philip Battle

  A re-read for me; I remember reading this book in my mid twenties, but appreciated it more this time round. The Victorian era was certainly the high watermark of British literature and storytelling. In this book we have two classic horror novels, which in my opinion neither film or TV adaptation has ever fully done justice to the books. Indeed, the written word of Dracula in particular, has at times, been totally forgotten in modern screenplays. These are as the title states two "Classics of Horror". and must reads for any lovers of "proper" literature! :)
• 
  Jos Langehuis

  I just rated the stories with three stars and I am already starting to feel guilty. There are the classics, the modern variations might be a better read in the 21st century, but they would never have been written if Dracula and Frankenstein had never existed. So please take your time and give it a chance. The classics deserve it.
• 
  Nicola C

  These editions I bought a few years ago they are without introductions that other editions may have and are a really nice set to own,in smaller hardback editions easy to carry in luggage.
  Dracula and Frankenstein both incredible books I cannot believe its taken me so long to get round to reading them.
• 
  Edwina Callan

  My goal for 2018 was to finally read this book that I've had for many, many years.
  11:50 P.M. 12/31/2018 and Finished!
  I found both of these books extremely tedious and am clueless as to the how and why of them being considered "classics".
  Blech!
  
• 
  P.S. Winn

  You have to grab these stories in the hardcover version to keep on your must read book shelf.
• 
  suri (tay's version)

  Está bien redactado y hecho para niños (estoy casi segura de que es paraa niños lol), lo leí cuando estaba más chica y me gustó bastante.
• 
  Joe

  Frankenstein, who is the real monster here?
• 
  Holly Hewitt

  Though obviously both great stories that have spawned countless retellings, I liked Dracula better. Frankenstein was a bit of a whiner
• 
  Cameron Rhoads

  I loved this book and listened raptly to both classics on Audible: Frankenstein (1818) and Dracula (1897). I thoroughly enjoyed both.
• 
  Holly Wright

  Though obviously both great stories that have spawned countless retellings, I liked Dracula better. Frankenstein was a bit of a whiner
• 
  Michael Picot

  I struggled between three stars and four stars with these two books. Considering that they were written in the 19th century, and I don't read many novels from the 19th century, I have a feeling they were excellent novels in their time. But, given the context of the 21st century and the evolution of writing during that time, especially in the horror and science fiction drama, specifically the horror novels that I've read, these two would be more of a three star rating. Don't get me wrong, I think Stoker and Shelley were geniuses in their day, and the contribution of these novels to popular culture is immeasurable. I did enjoy the discussion and depictions of the natural surroundings and geography of the settings in both books. I feel like Dracula had a little more action than Frankenstein, but Frankenstein was a little more dramatic and emotional. I think I felt more for the characters in Frankenstein. They both reminded me of Greek or Shakespearean tragedies. Again, if I read these books at face value in today's context I think the actual writing would be a three-star for me, but the impact these characters that Stoker and Shelley created on culture and the number of stories and characters that have been expounded on since then, make both of these novels seminal moments in the history of horror and science fiction literature. I contemplated that with awe the whole time I read these novels. I am intrigued to learn more about these characters and the books, plays, novels and movies that have spun off over time.
• 
  Jewel Allen

  I read Frankenstein first. This book I'd rate two stars. Slow start, but the fifth chapter was as good as promised. Terrifying premise, and very real. And then some of the later chapters switched to philosophical treatise, which wasn't as interesting. I skipped over a lot of those. The story of how this novel evolved was the amazing part; the author was only 18/19, Lord Byron challenged her and other writers to write a horror story, and she had this dream.
  
  The four stars of this review was really for Dracula. Unrelenting suspense, although sometimes the characters did head scratchers, the kind that makes a reader say, "Don't go into that room after dark!! Duh!" Some details seemed really bizarre, but the author ties up the details very nicely. The movie which starred Winona Ryder was very exploitative of the story's Freudian elements. It was good to read the original, devoid of Hollywood sensationalism, and to see why this book is considered the best of horror fiction.
• 
  Jessica

  Read dracula first, finished it on Dec 1 2008.
  Started reading Frankenstein October 2011 and am now about half way done with it.
• 
  Joanie

  Even though I didn't love either book that much I loved that they were combined in one volume here. The two books are just meant to be together.
• 
  Marts (Thinker)

  Two classic horror stories merged into one book, i don't think modern horror could touch these two.
• 
  John

  fiction,fantasy
• 
  Somer Schaffer

  I didn't read Frankenstein, too much of the same context and genre for me. Sometime I'll get to Shelley's book, but right now I need some modern romance.
• 
  April

  Just reading Frankenstein
• 
  David

  Both classics for very good reasons, these books should be read especially by people who are familiar with the stories only from the movies.
• 
  Mercedes Harris

  I enjoyed Dracula much more than Frankenstein. Frankenstein was a slow start and a pretty quick wrapped up ending.