fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3588 ]

Going to post my thoughts in response to this after taking a minute to gather them :) Feel free to post comments, questions, or thoughts in response to this as well!

So the book was a bit of a slog at some points especially at the beginning, and probably longer than it needed to be, but still a good read and enthralling at certain points.

Dracula himself was quite a scary fellow but got very little page time, so to speak. I think it was the thought of him that haunted everyone that brought the most fear. I guess I don't really get fear from books, so as a "horror" novel it didn't do much for me (but they never really do), but it made for an interesting situation.

I think I was most interested in how Dracula set some of the "rules" for vampires in literature and some of the now-seen-as-colloquial vampirisms (driving a wooden stake through the heart, aversion to garlic, etc.) might have been more novel then - and more grisly, especially the stake, and the blood-sucking. The shock factor would have done a lot more then than it does now, when vampires and their many variations are a common aspect of horror and fantasy, and people grow up knowing some of the lore. What was interesting to me at the end was apparently the wooden stake thing was not a hard and fast rule, since Quincey killed the Dracula himself with a Bowie knife, lol. That was really not what I expected. Maybe it had to do with the fact that it was sunset? And the simultaneous head-chopping on Jonathan's part?

I thought the most horrifying part of the story was probably meant to be Lucy's slow demise, and it was pretty bad, but to me the scariest part was when Jonathan was trapped in Dracula's castle. I wish we'd seen specifically how he escaped though - he talked about climbing down the walls and then next we see him he's already in the convent recovering with Sister Agatha (I think that was her name). I guess the climbing must have been successful?

Mina was probably my favorite character, in large part because she was clearly really, really smart and the men recognized and respected it and she was able to actively contribute to their mission in that way rather than just sitting around as The Damsel In Distress (obviously she played that role too, but not only that role). At first she was mostly just a secretary, but she wound up contributing some of the planning and puzzle-solving to the mission and that was cool. Of course it makes me roll my eyes that they constantly recognized her intelligence as saying she has "a man's brain" because of course it can't be normal for women to be smart, but that - and all the other ridiculous gender essentialism, mostly spouted by Van Helsing - was, I am sure, largely a product of its time. (The book was in many ways extremely Victorian, almost stiflingly so...)

The ending was tense and for a while I would have been sure Mina would die if the table of contents had not indicated the last chapter was one of her journal entries. I'm so glad she and Jonathan both lived because I shipped them hard by the end of the book and can only imagine what kind of bond they must have had after going through all that hell together.

Van Helsing was really cool at first, and while I still liked him as a character towards the end, I got really annoyed with his monologuing lol. I liked that he spoke in a way (even if it wasn't completely consistent) that made it clear that he wasn't a native English speaker - that was a well-done detail - but the fact that he just went on for so long got boring to read, and it was dumb too that he droned on and on when they were supposedly pressed for time.

I enjoyed the details of the castle, Jonathan's rooms, and the descriptions of the insides of the old houses Dracula inhabited in London.

It's too bad that Quincey was a throwaway character. I liked the juxtaposition of the American cowboy with the culture of Victorian England, and would have liked that to be explored more. I'm not in the least surprised he was the one to die the heroic death, but he was paid less attention than any of the other main characters throughout the book; I think it would have been better set up - especially since his death marked the final sentence (except the one-page epilogue) - had his character been more developed.

Perhaps the most interesting character was Renfield. I'm still not sure I understand the significance of everything he did or said, but some of it was possibly just to demonstrate to the reader that he was truly mad. His death was a sad one, especially since if he'd been released it would have been avoided, and he truly had Mina's (and the others') best wishes at heart. It's interesting that the moment of spiritual lucidity that allowed him to try to warn Seward and the others of the threat that existed to Mina, when he begged to be released, coincided with a moment of mental lucidity at the same time. I also predicted that his vague warning had to do with danger to Mina, and was correct. (that scene was pretty freaky, and well-written.) Also, I wondered at first why Renfield didn't just tell Seward the nature of the danger, but then I realized he had no idea that the others knew about the Count's identity, and he must have realized, in his lucidity, that telling the truth would have just made him seem more mad and been written off as a product of his madness (sort of like why Van Helsing didn't tell the others the truth until they could see it with their own eyes with Lucy, except he at least had some credibility as a professor; Renfield was a lunatic and anything from his mouth would have been met not just with skepticism but with a certainty that it was only a madman's ravings and thus must be false).

I'll leave it at that for now - I want to hear some of your thoughts! Some questions to get you going: was the book scary to you, and why or why not? What vampire tropes do you like in the book, and which ones do you like to see persisted in other vampire novels? What do you think of the individual characters and their relationships? What about Stoker's writing style? Any other thoughts, interesting things you noticed, etc.?

Comment away and I'll check back soon!

Mixed feelings.

I really loved the first ~100 pages. Those are fantastic. It's atmospheric, suspenseful, much more serious than I expected. I didn't want to stop reading at that point. The buildup of tension is something else. The carriage ride to Dracula's castle with the wolves chasing behind manages to create claustrophobia in an open air setting. It's fucking lovely!

And, oh, the imagery in Harker's early entries is beautiful. Dracula moving along the castle walls like a lizard, the female vampires forming out of moonlight and dust, Dracula gorging himself on so much blood that he is bloated with it etc. This is the bloody, messy, sinister vampirism I want to see.

I loved Harker at the beginning. He's so, so afraid, and yet never becomes completely useless. The development of dread and entrapment in those chapters is great. The letters Harker was forced to write in particular was a genuinely creepy moment. It's simple, it's effective, it's elegant.

It was all so intriguing, including the confused sexuality between Dracula and Harker. I was ready to fall in love.

And then Van Helsing happens. And it takes such a nosedive. It starts going round in circles, becomes repetitive, boring, and all the fun evaporates.

It descends into preachy camp and never recovers. Someone called it 'Christian propaganda', and I have to agree. Admittedly, I'm never going to be a big fan of religious fiction or religious themes in fiction, but I can put up with it just fine, if the text is worth it. But, holy cow, this is probably the most obnoxious example I've ever come across.

Not a fan of the whole pure, godly woman vs. devilish whore thing. There is a lot of repressed sexuality in the whole book, with female sexuality being the most dangerous of all (surprise, surprise). But that's the Victorians for you. The whole staking of Lucy reads like a fetishist's wet dream, which is simultaneously horrifying and hilarious. Or rather Lucy's whole arc with the multiple proposals, kisses and blood infusions is one giant leadup to the deliverance through violent and blood-soaked death idea, executed by her noble, manly fiance. Like a fratboy jackhammer deflowering a blow-up doll. In this case, a stake is not just a stake.

It's also way too long. If our main characters had spent less time praising themselves as brave and righteous heroes, the book could have been at least 100 pages shorter. And it would have been better for it.

I didn't like any of the 'good' characters. Even Harker becomes just another noble, manly douche, as soon as he loses his doubt in himself and his past experiences. I actively loathed Van Helsing. That old fart really got on my nerves. I wanted him to die so badly, because it would have been the only way to have him finally shut up. But sadly, that didn't happen. I would have loved to see more of Renfield, the female vampires and Dracula himself, because those were actually interesting.

I don't regret reading it, even though I found the second half progressively tedious and annoying, and I had little to no desire to pick it up and continue reading. I'm a bit sad and disappointed how it turned out. It could have been so much more. It could have been amazing. Especially, because Stoker so clearly would have had the skill, but no, instead he just deliberately made a lot of stupid choices.

we could have had it all.gif

Victorian-era literature can be grueling to read for a lot of reasons, but the religiousity, gender politics and long-windedness are definitely a few of those reasons.

Van Helsing to me is interesting as a character with his stilted English, and it's clear that his combination of vast knowledge yet open-mindedness makes him the ideal vampire hunter template if later media is anything to go on, but the way Stoker uses him definitely leaves a lot to be desired.

Would definitely like to have seen more of the vampires, Dracula included. Dracula was annoyingly underdeveloped for what's supposed to be the villain of the piece -- once Harker escapes from the castle that's the last we even see of Dracula himself for most of the book. (Though the bit where he showed up at the docks in a straw hat was really, really funny to me.)

Victorian morality and sentiment is one thing. But I honestly didn't expect it to this degree in something that is basically a pulp thriller with blood-sucking villains and monster hunting. It's not 'serious' literature at all. And while it is present at the beginning, it's present as background noise, unlike the rest of the book, where the reader is constantly hit over the head with it. It really exceeded my tolerance level in the later chapters, I'm afraid.

Van Helsing is complicated. I can - ever so slightly - see the potential why some people might like him, in theory. You have the quirky, dotty foreigner thing who turns out to be right with his crackpot theories.

However, in practice, he doesn't work at all. I, personally, couldn't understand at all, why everyone was in such a rage to believe, trust, obey, and even love him. It doesn't make sense to me, at all. There is not one dissenting voice against him among the main characters, not one. He doesn't actually have to overcome anything to establish himself. That's not a hero for me, that's a bad joke. But yeah, my dislike certainly colours my opinion in this case. And his fucking annoying, non-sensical accent really didn't help.

Yes, as the big bad and titular character, Dracula fell pretty flat. Which is even more sad, because the potential, the lovely details, so much material to play with, it's all there. And Stoker barely uses it.

The straw hat was awesome, though. I loved that, too. :D

To be fair to VH, the characters object to his ideas multiple times, which is precisely why he takes them on expeditions to the churchyard to prove his theories. You're right though, they do seem to trust him implicitly afterwards.

As far as Victorian morality... well, it's like I said in my own post, Mina herself definitely seems to be Stoker's vehicle for a pushback against a more modernized view of women and gender roles, which in 1897 would have been seeing prominence in things like suffragism, the New Woman movement (which Mina explicitly does the rhetorical equivalent of rolling her eyes at) and various women's campaigns. And I suspect he chose Mina for it precisely because she's a woman.

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-30 23:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

dethtoll - 2016-10-30 23:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-31 13:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

diet_poison - 2016-10-30 23:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-31 13:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

diet_poison - 2016-10-31 18:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-31 19:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

diet_poison - 2016-11-01 15:35 (UTC) - Expand

Though the bit where he showed up at the docks in a straw hat was really, really funny to me.

That part reminded me of some anime characters lol. Particularly (for some reason) Kisuke Urahara from Bleach, even though his hat isn't made of straw and he's not a villain. It's just the combination of the casual, sun-shading hat with the dark, serious attire I suppose.

I was thinking of Batman doing gardening, myself. :)

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

diet_poison - 2016-10-31 18:48 (UTC) - Expand

I don't agree entirely with your loathing of Van Helsing but he was pretty annoying at times, yeah.

I guess I didn't really pick up on all this sexual context. I do think the purity of "good women" is given a great deal of precedence but that's not really unique to this book from the time period, is it? I also think there might have been some sexual tension between Lucy and Dracula but it's hard to say because she wasn't really conscious when any of it was going on.

Where did you pick up on sexual tension between Jonathan and Dracula? Genuinely curious because I think that would add to the tension of the whole captivity but I didn't really pick up on it. To be honest I thought the book was fairly bereft of sex as a theme which was actually a refreshing change lol.

Agreed that it could have been much shorter and told the story just as well. A lot of the journaling was repetitive and Van Helsing's monologues were ridiculous.

The Harker/Dracula thing is at least in part a holdover of the first four chapters following a very common plot in Gothic literature in which a "pure" woman of good standing runs around a castle being menaced by a charming noble with rapacious designs. In this case, Harker is the stand-in for the ordinarily female role.

There's also an inherently sexual element to vampirism in general, which is probably why so many people want to bone them these days.

Ah ok. I kinda like that subversion lol. But I haven't read any books with that particular trope so I hadn't recognized it. It might make for an interesting love story if they managed to make the nobleman somewhat likeable, though it's hard to imagine a guy in that setting being particularly likeable lol.

There's also an inherently sexual element to vampirism in general, which is probably why so many people want to bone them these days.

I agree with this and have seen a lot of it, and can even sort of see the appeal, I just didn't pick up on it in Dracula, which is probably a combination of me being bad at reading between the lines, and Victorian culture being extremely repressed about sexuality and extremely circumspect and roundabout wrt how they talked or wrote about it.

ETA: ok now that I think about it the women in Dracula's castle were obviously supposed to be sexual, and clearly moreso than a mortal woman, which was supposed to be why they were so alluring. But they were really minor characters and also female, and I didn't see Dracula portrayed that way, except I guess maybe his features were supposed to be handsome but that wasn't specifically stated. And Dracula's female vampire companions were very minor characters and the sexual aspect was definitely not written the same way with Dracula himself.

(I do really want to read those short stories about the vampire women that Stoker apparently penned after Dracula, or at the same time and didn't include them from the novel, or something.)

Edited 2016-10-30 23:11 (UTC)

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-30 23:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

dethtoll - 2016-10-31 20:30 (UTC) - Expand

nayrt but homosexual themes, particularly with Jonathan and Dracula, have been a common topic in literary critique of the work. Who can say for sure, but plenty of academics have explored homoerotic undertones with Dracula. The author's interest in Walt Whitman also can't exactly be ignored, for some real life context.

No doubt, I'd just personally love to see some examples of it.

I finished the book on time!

I've read this book several times, the first when I was just a teenager. But it's been some years, I think I last read it in maybe 2009? So coming back to it, with the stuff I know and think about now, as the person I am now, has been interesting, particularly since while I remember the basic narrative beats, I'd forgotten much of the details.

The first thing that strikes me about the book was the Victorian-era gender politics. It's EVERYWHERE -- but especially in the 2nd half of the book where it actively puts Mina in danger (and they STILL try to exclude her "for her protection." It's only towards the end, when she can be useful, that they take her along after she insists.

The obvious roots in Gothic fiction are there, though the first four chapters are definitely a subversion of how Gothic fiction usually works out, given that Harker is male (though, funny enough, he seems to be written as youthful and not strong by masculine standards of the day.) Though I wonder what pushed Stoker to write this book; it's not like Dracula was the first book of its kind. Popular literature such as Carmilla had introduced vampires as early as the 1870s, and Gothic literature itself had been around for most of the century (and arguably the genre was on its way out.) Ultimately it feels like Stoker pulled together some of the old superstitious lore behind vampires and centered it loosely around the legend of Vlad the Impaler. I read somewhere that he only chose the name Dracula because he read that "Dracula" meant "devil." He could have based the character on anybody, or nobody at all.

Based on how we see vampires in modern times with things like Twilight and True Blood, it's fun to go back and look at how Dracula seemed to establish the rules, including several that seem to be generally ignored nowadays, such as anything to do with running water. Interestingly enough, ol' D doesn't actually die in sunlight, which strikes me as odd given how that's one of the most long-standing and observed "rule" in popular vampire media. What's most striking, though, is how Dracula himself is killed not by a stake to the heart, but by a bowie knife. But that actually fits with the legends -- that silver or steel harm vampires just as they might werewolves.

The characters themselves are quite interesting in their own right. Mina makes for a good lead, especially since she does stuff, but it's obvious that Stoker was using her to push back against things like the New Woman movement and newfangled ideas about feminism. Lucy makes for an interesting contrast, as she's got that whole "purity and innocence" vibe and was therefore doomed -- her later debasement as a vampire was clearly intended to be all the more shocking for that. Harker probably serves as an adequate "everyman" character -- he's male, but well-learned and not exactly the strongest guy around, and he gets menaced in true Gothic fashion by the scary foreign nobleman in a subversion of Victorian-era gender politics. I feel like Dr. Seward is for all intents and purposes the main character; it's through him and Lucy that the rest of the cast is pulled in, and he has the most page time. And as a doctor, he represents Victorian science and skepticism standing in the face of the supernatural (a tactic HP Lovecraft would use to good effect in his own work 20-30 years later) and serves as a good contrast to Van Helsing, who is also a doctor, but much more knowledgeable and more open-minded. Van Helsing himself is perhaps the most entertaining member of the cast, with his stilted English and fatherly role to the others, as well as his willingness to believe in the unbelievable.

However, I was kind of annoyed at how Quincy and Arthur were mostly minor characters, especially Quincy who was almost barely peripheral at points. Arthur gets very little focus beyond his relationship to Lucy and his status as nobility; Quincy seems mostly to exist to round out the cast and perform as an exaggerated American stereotype (which promptly disappears after the first third of the book and he sounds as British as everyone else) and then he dies -- which is especially annoying because there's no buildup and we're barely made to care about him.

I can definitely tell that Stoker had a background in theatre -- the longwinded speeches by many of the characters (especially Van Helsing, good lord) definitely seem better suited to a stage play. The few added moments of levity feel like a Shakespearean joke too -- my personal favorite being Harker attempting to deal with people who can't spell "deputy."

The "vampire rules" that do and don't appear in this is one of the more interesting things for me too. I always enjoyed telling people that Dracula didn't die in sunlight when they complained about Twilight vampires going out in the sun.

The first thing that strikes me about the book was the Victorian-era gender politics...especially in the 2nd half of the book where it actively puts Mina in danger (and they STILL try to exclude her "for her protection."

OMG, yes. Especially since you could kinda see it coming, when they started to exclude her and she almost immediately started to show signs of vampire attack, but didn't want to confide in them because they were ~so busy and also because she felt these barriers of communication (iirc she directly related her reasoning for not sharing with their secrecy about plans, even if that doesn't make sense).

though, funny enough, he seems to be written as youthful and not strong by masculine standards of the day.

Maybe that's why he appealed to me a little more than the other young male leads :P (though the real reason probably has to do more with reading his perspective in Dracula's castle which just made him more interesting overall, plus my love of his relationship with Mina)

such as anything to do with running water.

This is super interesting to me because while I haven't seen this in other vampire lit I've read (admittedly not very many books, but there've been a few) but I HAVE seen it in more than one other fantasy books with other villainous creatures, and I have to wonder if it was borrowed from vampire lore. In The Wheel of Time, Shadowspawn (various evil creatures spawned from the lands of the Big Bad, many inspired by various evil creature tropes) either cannot cross running water or will do so only reluctantly and need to be driven by more powerful creatures or human leaders. WoT does have a vampire-inspired creature, the Dragkhar, which is sort of like a cross between a vampire and a Dementor, but they can fly so I'm not sure the running water rule applies to them. The Abhorsen trilogy by Garth Nix involves the dead, basically zombies (dead corpses raised by necromancers that behave in many ways like zombies but aren't infectuous) and they are unable to cross running water. Tangent, sorry! Just think it's interesting.

But that actually fits with the legends -- that silver or steel harm vampires just as they might werewolves.

So I've heard the silver thing, for vamps and werewolves, but that didn't seem to apply here. Dracula himself was holding a silver...something (a lamp I think?) at the beginning of the book. But maybe it only counts if it enters their body (i.e. a silver knife) and doesn't harm their skin? Hm.

but it's obvious that Stoker was using her to push back against things like the New Woman movement and newfangled ideas about feminism.

I guess I haven't read enough Victorian literature to know if this was different genderwise than most other Victorian novels; it didn't occur to me that it might be other than normal lol. I guess it was pretty preachy about its gender essentialism though. :/

I wish they'd done more with Quincy but I found Arthur to be really pretty boring, so I didn't care as much about him. tbh I found Seward boring too but his journals were still interesting inasmuch as they pertained to Renfield. He and Arthur pretty much didn't have any unique character development to me though, except Seward's relationship with Van Helsing.

Agree completely about lack of buildup to Quincey's death. :(

And Van Helsing's monologues reminded me of Shakespeare lol. I've read enough in school to be familiar with the monologue that said little with many words. I don't remember very many specific quotes though (maybe not any...) so I didn't pick up on the actual references lol.

You're making a lot of great points here. It's a very zeitgeisty novel, isn't it. You've called it a 'cultural artifact' in your other comment, and that hits the nail on the head, I think.

We have all this technology, science, psychology, simultaneous xenophobia and exoticism stuff, all coupled with repressive morality and religiosity.

And we have the monsters, who are so beautifully suited to showcase an era's underbelly. Because it's not about simple fear or hatred. It's fear mixed with unholy desire.

I think the thing that interested me most about the book was less the vampire-specific mythology, and more the general Gothic-ness of everything. It's so effectively atmospheric - especially the section that's just Harker's letters at the beginning. It's basically a Victorian travelogue that goes to this intensely weird place. The sections that are back in England are a little more formulaic but still very good at carrying across the feels. And Stoker seems really good at getting all the brooding, medieval, dark, ominous feelings out there, the whole Gothic sensibility. Lost beautiful women, storms, Catholicism, etc etc etc.

One of the things that does interest me - and obviously this is not new ground - but how much of the novel has to do with exoticness - the foreignness of Dracula, and especially the religious/cultural element between the English characters and Van Helsing and the rest of the continental stuff. It ties in with the Gothic stuff obviously and I think a lot of the unsettling alienness that Dracula has draws really effectively on those cultural ideas. All this Victorian-ass culture.

The one thing that really frustrated me about the book is when Mina is getting attacked by Dracula, and it's SO OBVIOUS what's happening and it takes them SO LONG to figure it out. Very frustrating. But Mina's character was good.

Yeah the foreignness of Dracula was I think supposed to be part of what made him scary, and not just that he was foreign but that he was from the areas of eastern Europe that were considered to be more savage and scary for various reasons. (Personally I found the various peoples there very interesting and would like to read more about that time period and the various countries there, and how those borders have changed. Even in the modern day we hardly learned about countries in eastern Europe in history/geography in school which was pretty dumb.)

The one thing that really frustrated me about the book is when Mina is getting attacked by Dracula, and it's SO OBVIOUS what's happening and it takes them SO LONG to figure it out. Very frustrating.

YEAH the minute they were like "huh Mina looks a bit pale" I was like DID YOU JUST FORGET EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED TO LUCY, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S ALL YOU TALK ABOUT, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU NOT ALARMED??? That just seemed really dumb.

For all that is holy, do not read the unofficial sequel to Dracula called "Bloodline" by Kate Cary. It will make you hate every character possible. (Poor Mina got so horribly destroyed..)

I'm sort of curious now, at least to see a plot summary of this story. I've never heard of it.

What's it about? (spoilers okay) How does it destroy the characters?

Quincy Harker turns out to be Dracula's grandson. And Mina marries Dracula's son and is turned into a vampire, again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodline_(Cary_novel) - I bought because the jacket sounded good but then, ugh.

lol, sounds awful. Yikes!

Tangently related, I read the next two books in the Graceling series!

Where is Fire!anon? I really liked Fire more than Graceling!!! and I think I liked Bitterblue the same amount as Fire, but in a different way.

Mostly I'm sad there's not a 4th book, as I feel each book the writing is more refined and polished.

I'm also pleased with the subtle incorporation of sexuality and disability into the books. I'm surprised it's not being flogged on tumblr (but maybe it is and I haven't noticed. They are newish publications?)

I'm now having a book hangover :(

Edited 2016-10-31 00:58 (UTC)

I really need to do those! I'll have to talk to you about them!

[ SECRET POST #3588 ]

Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Graceling driveby

Re: Graceling driveby