To be sure, this book carries worthy elements. The technique of using letters and journals is interesting, and it helps us to see the situation from different points of view. The pace is nice and swift, and the book rarely drags. Some images are drawn well, and some characters are memorable. It must also be stated that this book provided the foundation for the several Dracula movies. (Notably the Lugosi and Langella version.) Unfortunately, the 1979 version of Dracula with Frank Langella as Dracula and Laurence Olivier as Abraham Van Helsing shows the flaws in the book. (1) It's hard to see the Dracula in this book as anything but a monster who gets what he deserves in the end. Frank Langella makes Dracula all the more frightening by making him human and fascinating. We may not feel sorry for him, but he is more fascinating than repulsive. (2) It takes little to know that in the book, Renfield is under Dracula's power. John Badham (the director of Frank Langella's "Dracula") probably realized that it would be better to give Renfield the initial appearance with Dracula to introduce us to Dracula's evil. This allows for a less obtuse John Harker. (3) Delaying John Harker's meeting Dracula offers us more surprises, a greater unfolding of terror, and allows for a more intelligent John Harker who gradually realizes the danger of Dracula. (4) Laurence Olivier keeps the eccentricities of Abraham Van Helsing, but tones them down nicely. Also, Laurence Olivier (Abraham Van Helsing) is much more convincing here since he has an axe to grind. (Dealing with the death of his beloved daughter, seeing her turned into a vampire, having to run a stake through his own daughter's heart, and having to listen to her cry: 'papa' before she is destroyed.) (5) Making Lucy (Nelligan) an eventual willing victim of Dracula who attacks her father, her possibly to be husband, and father of her recently deceased best girl friend introduces new meaning to the word terror. For the record, this is much more captivating than Mina's sudden absurd pity for Dracula. I don't see how we can go along with any sympathy for Dracula in the book. Unlike Macbeth from "Macbeth" or Claudius from "Hamlet" we were never permitted to see him as human. (6) The book has Renfield's murder off stage. (We shouldn't really have trouble knowing Dracula did it at this point.) So much is lost here. In Langella's movie, much of Langella's crimes have been offstage. There is unspeakable terror in the fact that we finally  see a brutal murder on stage. Don't get me wrong. This is a good book that deserves a place in the museum of literature, and it did pave the way for Lugosi and Langella. But in all honesty, John Badham, Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier, Trevor Eve, Donald Pleasence, and Kate Nelligan outdid the book in evry sense of the word.
To be sure, this book carries worthy elements. The technique of using letters and journals is interesting, and it helps us to see the situation from different points of view. The pace is nice and swift, and the book rarely drags. Some images are drawn well, and some characters are memorable. It must also be stated that this book provided the foundation for the several Dracula movies. (Notably the Lugosi and Langella version. ) Unfortunately, the 1979 version of Dracula with Frank Langella as Dracula and Laurence Olivier as Abraham Van Helsing shows the flaws in the book. (1) It's hard to see the Dracula in this book as anything but a monster who gets what he deserves in the end. Frank Langella makes Dracula all the more frightening by making him human and fascinating. We may not feel sorry for him, but he is more fascinating than repulsive. (2) It takes little to know that in the book, Renfield is under Dracula's power. John Badham (the director of Frank Langella's "Dracula") probably realized that it would be better to give Renfield the initial appearance with Dracula to introduce us to Dracula's evil. This allows for a less obtuse John Harker. (3) Delaying John Harker's meeting Dracula offers us more surprises, a greater unfolding of terror, and allows for a more intelligent John Harker who gradually realizes the danger of Dracula. (4) Laurence Olivier keeps the eccentricities of Abraham Van Helsing, but tones them down nicely. Also, Laurence Olivier (Abraham Van Helsing) is much more convincing here since he has an axe to grind. (Dealing with the death of his beloved daughter, seeing her turned into a vampire, having to run a stake through his own daughter's heart, and having to listen to her cry: 'papa' before she is destroyed. ) (5) Making Lucy (Nelligan) an eventual willing victim of Dracula who attacks her father, her possibly to be husband, and father of her recently deceased best girl friend introduces new meaning to the word terror. For the record, this is much more captivating than Mina's sudden absurd pity for Dracula. I don't see how we can go along with any sympathy for Dracula in the book. Unlike Macbeth from "Macbeth" or Claudius from "Hamlet" we were never permitted to see him as human. (6) The book has Renfield's murder off stage. (We shouldn't really have trouble knowing Dracula did it at this point. ) So much is lost here. In Langella's movie, much of Langella's crimes have been offstage. There is unspeakable terror in the fact that we finally  see a brutal murder on stage. Don't get me wrong. This is a good book that deserves a place in the museum of literature, and it did pave the way for Lugosi and Langella. But in all honesty, John Badham, Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier, Trevor Eve, Donald Pleasence, and Kate Nelligan outdid the book in evry sense of the word.