Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Dracula (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)
  • Alternative view 1 of Dracula (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)
  • Alternative view 2 of Dracula (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

Dracula (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

3.4 49829
by Bram Stoker, Brooke Allen (Introduction)

See All Formats & Editions

Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics


Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:

New introductions commissioned from today's top writers and scholars Biographies of the authors Chronologies of contemporary historical, biographical, and cultural events Footnotes and endnotes Selective discussions of imitations, parodies, poems, books, plays, paintings, operas, statuary, and films inspired by the work Comments by other famous authors Study questions to challenge the reader's viewpoints and expectations Bibliographies for further reading Indices & Glossaries, when appropriateAll editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.

Product Details

Barnes & Noble
Publication date:
Barnes & Noble Classics Series
Sales rank:
Product dimensions:
6.84(w) x 4.30(h) x 1.32(d)

Read an Excerpt

From Karen Karbiener's Introduction to Frankenstein

Werewolves, vampires, witches, and warlocks have been the stuff of folklore, legend, and nightmare for centuries, yet none have so haunted the public imagination as the monster created by eighteen-year-old Mary Shelley in 1816. From the start, we have been eager to help the monster live off of the page, to interpret the tale for ourselves. Within five years of the novel's initial publication, the first of what would eventually be more than ninety dramatizations of Frankenstein appeared onstage. Shelley herself went to see one of the thirty-seven performances of Presumption that played in London in 1823. Lumbering violently and uttering inarticulate groans, the monster attracted record numbers of theatergoers, as well as a series of protests by the London Society for the Prevention of Vice. Mary was pleased and "much amused" by Thomas Cooke's attempts to portray the monster, and even made a favorable note about the playbill to her friend Leigh Hunt. "In the list of dramatis personae came, — by Mr. T Cooke: this nameless mode of naming the unameable [sic] is rather good," she wrote on September 11 (Letters, vol. 1, p. 378).

A familiar yet ever-evolving presence on the Victorian stage, the monster also haunted the pages of newspapers and journals. Political cartoonists used Shelley's monster as the representation of the "pure evil" of Irish nationalists, labor reformers, and other favored subjects of controversy; it was often depicted as an oversized, rough-and-ready, weapon-wielding hooligan. In Annals of the New York Stage, George Odell notes that audiences were entertained with photographic "illusions" of the monster as early as the 1870s. And the cinema was barely ten years old before the Edison Film Company presented their version of the story, with Charles Ogle portraying a long-haired, confused-looking giant. Virtually every year since that film's appearance in 1910, another version of Frankenstein has been released somewhere in the world-though the most enduring image of the monster was the one created by Boris Karloff in James Whale's 1931 classic. The creature's huge, square head, oversized frame, and undersized suit jacket still inform most people's idea of what Shelley's monster "really" looks like.

As strange and various as the interpretations of the creature have been, the monster has retained a surprisingly human quality. Even in its most melodramatic portrayals, its innate mortality is made apparent; whether through a certain softness in the eyes, a wistfulness or longing in its expression, or a desperate helplessness in its movements, the creature has always come across as much more than a stock horror device. In fact, several film adaptations have avoided the use of heavy makeup and props that audiences have come to expect. Life Without a Soul (1915) stars a human-looking, flesh-toned monster; and in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), actor Robert DeNiro, who is certainly neither ugly nor of great stature, did not wear the conventional green face paint and restored the monster's eloquent powers of speech.

Like Satan in Paradise Lost, Mary Shelley's monster was given a shadowy and elusive physical presence by its creator. It moves through the story faster than the eye can follow it, descending glaciers "with greater speed than the flight of an eagle" or rowing "with an arrowy swiftness." The blurriness of the scenes in which the monster appears allows us to create his image for ourselves and helps explain why it has inspired so many adaptations and reinterpretations. Certainly, too, both Milton's Satan and Shelley's creature have been made more interesting, resonant, and frightening because they have human qualities. The monster possesses familiar impulses to seek knowledge and companionship, and these pique our curiosity and awaken our sympathies. Its complex emotions, intelligence, and ability to plan vengeful tactics awaken greater fears than the stumbling and grunting of a mindless beast. A closer look at Shelley's singular description of the monster's features reveals its likeness to a newborn infant rather than a "fiend" or "demon": Consider its "shrivelled complexion," "watery eyes," and "yellow skin [that] scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath." The emotional range of De Niro's monster, the gentle childish expression in Karloff's eyes, even the actor Cooke's "seeking as it were for support-his trying to grasp at the sounds he heard" (Letters, vol. 1, p. 378), suggest that we have sensed the monster's humanity all along.

Another trend in the way the monster has been reinterpreted is equally suggestive. Movie titles such as Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), and Dracula Vs. Frankenstein (1971) testify to the fact that the monster has taken on the name of his creator in popular culture. In Frankenstein, the monster is called plenty of names by his creator, from at best "the accomplishment of my toils" to "wretch," "miserable monster," and "filthy daemon"; significantly, Victor never blesses his progeny with his own last name. Our identity of the creature as the title character does, of course, shift the focus from man to monster, reversing Shelley's intention. Reading the book, we realize that Frankenstein's lack of recognizing the creature as his own-in essence, not giving the monster his name-is the monster's root problem. Is it our instinctive human sympathy for the anonymous being that has influenced us to name him? Is it our recognition of similarities and ties between "father" and "son," our defensiveness regarding family values? Or is it simply our interest in convenience, our compelling need to label and sort? Our confusion of creator and created, as well as our interest in depicting the creature's human side, indicate an unconscious acknowledgment of a common and powerful reading of Frankenstein: that the monster and his creator are two halves of the same being who together as one represents the self divided, a mind in dramatic conflict with itself. Just as Walton notes to his sister the possibility of living a "double existence," even the civilized person is forever in conflict with his or her own monstrous, destructive, even self-destructive side. Indeed, if the monster/creator conflation were to represent the human race in general, Shelley seems to be saying that our struggles with the conflicting impulses to create and destroy, to love and hate, permeate all of human existence. Shelley could not have chosen an idea with more relevance to twentieth- and twenty-first-century readers than humankind's own potential inhumanity to itself. Our ambitions have led us to the point where we, too, can accomplish what Victor did in his laboratory that dreary night in November: artificially create life. But will our plan to clone living organisms or produce life in test tubes have dire repercussions? We build glorious temples to progress and technology, monumental structures that soar toward the heavens; and yet in a single September morning, the World Trade Center was leveled-proving once again that man is his own worst enemy.

In Frankenstein, Shelley exhibits a remarkable ability to anticipate and develop questions and themes peculiarly relevant to her future readers, thereby ensuring its endurance for almost 200 years. To understand why and how this ability developed, we must take a closer look at her life, times, and psychological state. Certainly, Frankenstein details a fascinating experiment, introduces us to vivid characters, and takes us to gorgeous, exotic places. But this text, written by a teenager, also addresses fundamental contemporary questions regarding "otherness" and society's superficial evaluations of character based on appearance, as well as modern concerns about parental responsibility and the harmful effects of absenteeism. Anticipating the alienation of everyday life, Robert Walton and the monster speak to those of us who now live our lives in front of screens of various kinds-computer, television, movie. Other readers may feel stabs of recognition when confronting Victor, a perfectionist workaholic who sacrifices love and friendship in the name of ambition. Frankenstein is a nineteenth-century literary classic, but it is also fully engaged in many of the most profound philosophical, psychological, social, and spiritual questions of modern existence.

Meet the Author

Abraham (Bram) Stoker (1847-1912) is the author of one of the English language’s best-known books of mystery and horror, Dracula. Written in epistolary form, Dracula chronicles a vampire’s journey from Transylvania to the nighttime streets of London and is a virtual textbook of Victorian-era fears and anxieties. Stoker also wrote several other horror novels, including The Jewel of Seven Stars and The Lair of the White Worm.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Dracula 3.4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 49829 reviews.
Alexandra-Lanc More than 1 year ago
I don't mean to sound mean or anything, because I love Twilight, but Dracula is probably one of the best (if not the best) vampire book ever written. Not only is it a classic, but it's just a great story, with well thought out characters and a great plot. It takes a little bit of getting used to, since the format of the story is a little strange, but a chapter or so in it's not too hard to read. The story is very compelling and will make you think, which also makes it good for book clubs and discussions. A good thriller!
Abby More than 1 year ago
This book was written 112 years ago and it's just as scary as Stephen King's Salem's Lot. The fictional character of Dracula is not sexy nor repentant he is just full of bloodlust and everyone around him is his prey. This book should be read by anyone who likes gothic novels or vampires. This book should be the first vampire novel read before any others so you can see the progession of how the character has changed.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This is the original but it is definitely the best. Many people who are used to reading Stephanie Meyer and other modern vampire authors may be disappointed as they will be forced to think about what they are reading in Stoker's Dracula. I have always had this on my "to read" list. I am very sorry I waited this long to pick it up. I read it almost straight through and now my 9th grader is reading it. At over 100 years old, there are language and expressions used that you may need to think about but most can be taken contextually. It should not present much of a problem for those who are willing to look things up or ponder for a moment before pressing on. There are some very tense and scary moments in the story. It is set up as a series of journal entries from the diaries of each of the characters (except for Dracula himself). I actually found this setup to be most entertaining. Stoker developed the characters thoroughly via this avenue. It is an excellent book -- a timeless classic that everyone should read.
Rae-Westwick More than 1 year ago
This was the first Barnes & Noble Classics Series book I bought and I had some mixed feelings about it. The book itself was great, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys horror films. But I would also recommend not reading the introduction if you do not already know the outcome of Dracula. In the introduction, Brooke Allen tells you alittle too much about the story, like its outcome and all kinds of things in the middle. I had not read Dracula, or seen any film adaptations of the original story, so having an introduction, that is not part of the story, tell me what the outcome was really bugged me. The book is great, but I would recommend skipping the intro if you don't already know the story of Dracula.
BookFan7 More than 1 year ago
This was one of the first books I downloaded to my new Nook (admittedly because it was free at the time, but I was intrigued). I love a good scary read and thought this would be a great book to break-in my Nook on. I wasn't disappointed. Leave any movie visions you have behind and let your imagination run wild. It was a facinating read with several climaxes that keep you on edge. Definitely not what I expected, but in a good way. Enjoy!
Kreggory More than 1 year ago
Bram Stoker's Dracula is unique in its approach to writing. It is original in its style and storytelling concept. As introduced at the beginning of the novel, it is portrayed to be a stake of journals, diaries, letters, and recordings, placed in a particular order that will tell the story of Count Dracula and the characters involvement with him. This is unique and enjoyable. When the source changes from letter to diary to journal etc, then the style and voice and perspective also change to the point that one forgets that Bram Stoker is the sole author. After seeing Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 movie and the initial love story, back story, and Dracula's motivation for coming to London the book is deficient. The ending of the movie of course provides for an ongoing story or sequel. The book just abruptly ends and you are left with a "is that all" feeling. Character development is shallow but there are moments of brilliance in scenic description and allusion. Vampire lore and abilities are defined and there are moments of pure evil. No sparkling in the sunlight. No pretty boys with gorgeous eyes. No modern day "you would if you loved me" BS. Just plain, straight up horror and creepiness. Though very very subtle the sexual undercurrent can be pronounced. Freud, who is reported to have analyzed Dracula, saw it and most modern readers will too. The sexual scenes and tension was palpable in the movie and could be even more. I guess this is one of the facets of vampirism that is appealing to modern teens and writers. The book is a good easy read and has several genius moments of description and visualization that every one should read once. This is still the FIRST true vampire novel that has influenced the world. One could say that Dracula is to vampirism as Elvis is to rock and roll. No one hardly remembers what happened before but the phenomenon that is still raging now owes everything to this world changing pioneer. The thing that stands out even now as I am writing this review is how Bram Stoker changed voice and style and meter when he changed characters. By the middle of the book you could tell who's letter or journal or diary you were reading by the way it was written and the way it sounded; very talented and insightful author.
fsrasmd More than 1 year ago
I remember picking up this book from the library in high school and not getting past page one. Ten years later, I could not put the book down. This is truly THE vampire tale. This is where all modern vampire tales come from. I am a Buffy and Twilight fan but they do not hold a candle (or a stake) to this classic. Once you get to page ten, you will not be able to stop. Highly recommended.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I just started reading this one and so far I can't put it down.
darthlaurie More than 1 year ago
When I was fourteen I saw a documentary on Bela Lugosi. Up to that point, I had never given much thought to vampires other than Grandpa Munster, Count Chocula, and the Count from Sesame Street. But there was something about Bela, his story and the way he immortalized Dracula forever that led me to reading Dracula. Johnathan Harker isn't the most interesting character in literature. He's rather bland and I struggled through the first chapter or two until he enters Castle Dracula and meets his captor. Count Dracula is always written about in the third person. I really enjoy the epistolary form of conveying the story and I think Bram Stoker did a pretty good job of creating different voices. Sure his female characters lack complexity and Quincy Morris is the sterotypical Texas cowboy-- the strong but silent type. And of course, Van Helsing...Dracula's nemesis and the most complex good guy in the entire book. Stoker does a terrific job with setting the stage and moving the story along. He creates a monster that is genuinely terrifying because he is so inhuman and doesn't play by the rules of well-mannered Victorians. He is terrifying because you never know what form he'll take. Perhaps one of the more frightening aspects of Dracula isn't the actual vampire so much as his ability to control mere mortals and even drive them to the point of madness...there's a very fine line between sanity and madness sometimes and I think that point is driven home quite well in Dracula. Dracula may not be scary in the fashion of Steven King, but I know I've had times where I've gone to bed and I haven't been able to fall right to sleep because there could be malevolent forces outside my window...well you never know. All I know is Dracula isn't sparkly or whiney or hating his eternal life. He embraces his life and maybe that's a lesson we should all learn.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If you just purchased a nook this book is a perfict first book because A. Its free B. Its a classic C. Its the the perfict combonation of suspense, comedy, and horror. I highly recomend this book to any new nook customer.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I read this classic tale of horror many years ago and it was the first book that frightened me so much I couldn't sleep. That's odd because I never thought it would be so terrifying. Of course, I've seen all the movie versions, but there're nothing compared to the original book by Bram Stoker. The Nook version is also excellent. It's so easy to read and the layout is perfect. You can get from chapter to chapter by simply tapping on the table of contents. Well worth the money for this classic tale of terror.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Dracula is such a gripping, suspenseful novel that I found it hard to put down. I would highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys the modern thriller genera.
All-American-Bookworm More than 1 year ago
I read this shortly after reading Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, and let me tell you, if you're looking for a book about vampires, THIS is the one to get! No sparkly, "vegitarian" vampires here! I've got nothing againts the Twilight saga, but Stoker's Dracula is definatly the book to read for an awesome vampire story!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If you are a fan of modern day horror or vampire stories, you owe it to yourself to read the father of them all. The language is old, but the story is timeless. I have already re-read it once and probably will again someday.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Perhaps there is a tenth of the book that drags, and some thick-written accenrs for passing characters is rough to read, but on the whole this novel is impossible to put down. The links to appendices work well and serve to inform of archaic termonology as well as references (remember that while in the appendices you can touch the number of the entry and return back to the page it pulls from, in case the "back" button disappears). Better than the movie, and any vampire fiction I have read or seen.
can-I-read909 More than 1 year ago
I recently purchased this book after going years without reading it. This is a classic novel. By an underrated author bram stoker who died in povertyand enver saw the books impact or success. By using vlad the impaler and elizabeth bathery as inspiration he creates a misty world of supernatural romanticism. Dracula as a creature of the night in thrilling action sequences is just what you need sometimes. he writing style in this book is along dead form but it works well with dracula.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
It was fun to finally read this wonferfully written horror classic.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Another book no movie could ever match. Love the classics!
Shrew More than 1 year ago
I loved this book! I wasn't going to bother reading it because I've been watching Dracula movies for years, but I'm glad I did. It is much better than the movies.
frozenbloodmoon More than 1 year ago
Good detail about the main characters and good visualization. Kind of hard to follow at times, but I was satisfied with how it came together.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
For vampire lovers all over the place this is a good pick
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
First of all I read this years ago in middle school and loved it. Dracula is the original vampire and Stoker was an amazing novelist. This book is not for everyone though, you need patience. And all these people bad-mouthing it in reviews who haven't read it, or in fact can not spell, need to have some respect for a book which is older than anyone living today.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
by far one of the best if not the best books of all time. a real clasic. cant go wrong with this one.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I would like to start this off by saying I mean no disrespect to those who may find twilight enjoyable. Bram Stokers Dracula is an incredible book and I cannot help but feel sorry for anyone who has ever or will ever write any form of literature including a vampire. It has gotten to the point where if a character has pointy teeth or glitters in sunlight they will be compared to the ridiculous cultural phenomenon that is Twilight. I am just beginning to read all of the classics that formed the foundation of modern day literature and even cinema, and honestly as soon as someone mentioned twilight I nearly clicked back to the book listing right then. However, I tried not to let it be ruined by mentally comparing it. In the end, all I have to say is this book is without a doubt a must read. I mourn the death of the true and compelling legend that is the Vampire.
PBdoubleL More than 1 year ago
I went into this book thinking that I wouldn't be able to cope with the late 19th century writing style. I was completely wrong. Stoker engages the reader from the very beginning and doesn't let go until the end. Throw out all vampire lore and jump into this novel because it will not disappoint.