I have that bottom one, but never got around to reading it. The font is tiny and daunting.
The great success and great failure of Dracula is its epistolary form. It disperses all energy by its organization while simultaneously is energized by the seeming authenticity of it. In order words, letters seem cool but aren't really that suspenseful (eg how could this guy be in danger if he had time to post a letter?)
The "idea" is the thing in DRACULA, not the writing itself. I agree with Mathew that its epistolary form washes in both directions. Perhaps we can consider it one of the first "found" books, a realistic document focusing on mumbo-jumbo.Love the second cover.
I haven't read DRACULA since '92, around the time the Coppola version came out (that's my copy at the very top), but I was impressed by its power. While I agree the epistolary style is dated and mitigates some suspense, I believe it rewards a reading today, and that none of the film adaptations have really capture its evil essence...
the airmont Classics edition is the one they always sold in the back of the Warren comics.
Lots of great covers here.My favorite edition is the Bantam MMPB with the Caspar David Friedrich cover, "Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon." http://www.flickr.com/photos/14936127@N07/5870266353/Friedrich's work has been used on the cover of several classic horror editions.When I read the book I also found it somewhat talky and the epistolary structure grew a bot tiresome over such a long novel. But I think if I wasn't already so familiar with the basic plot from watching so many movies based on it the book would have been very suspenseful.
Post a Comment