Reader discussion: Dracula

Public reader discussion about Dracula in the WeRead Catalog by Bram Stoker.

Dracula is so campy

By camera40

This is my first time reading *Dracula* and I keep trying to imagine what’s going on from his side the whole time. Like, when he’s gotta meet Jonathan at the house—he goes from the garage to the front door to greet him 😂 but isn’t he supposed to be super fast? Did he just hang out by the door for a minute first? And then there’s him saying he has “business to attend to.” What business is that? Basically cooking Jonathan’s dinner, right? Then the Whitby part… why does he need to kill everyone on the boat? If he can transform, couldn’t he just travel some other way? Also was he on the side of the boat during the day and then feeding at night? I can’t tell what the deal was. And the whole thing where he makes the wolf break into Lucy’s place so he can get past the garlic—what is happening there 😭 I haven’t gotten past this part yet, but I know I’m reading it kinda wrong, and it’s still hilarious. I’m actually having a blast with it!!

Lucy in Bram Stoker's Dracula

By jartiny2002

I’ve got a question while re-reading. Lucy starts sleep-walking and she gets that really pale, “washed out” look way before the ship even gets to Whitby. And we all know who’s supposed to be on that ship, so… what’s the deal? Is this just some kind of normal illness that Dracula’s arrival makes worse, or is his influence somehow leaking to Whitby before he even shows up? It kind of makes me think of Renfield getting worse with that “zoophagus” kind of madness in the same stretch of chapters, like maybe it’s all connected. But I’m not sure. I always assumed Lucy’s sleepwalking and anaemia meant she’d already had some direct contact, not just reacting to the idea that he’s coming.

What's your take on Bram Stokers Dracula ?

By coastal72

I’m mostly talking to folks who’ve actually read the book, not just watched the movie. I’ve seen a bunch of reviews where people say it drags and doesn’t go deep enough, and I can’t really agree. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought it was put together in this really careful, almost beautiful way, and the movie still felt like it matched what I pictured in my head. It’s one of my favorite books, yet I keep seeing so much hate for it. So what does everyone else think? It’s fine either way if you read it or only watched—just genuinely curious. Am I the only one who felt like it’s a Victorian gothic kind of masterpiece?

Dracula: Chapter 1 Discussion

By Superuser

Hey everyone—welcome to the Dracula group read! I’m u/Thermos_of_Byr, and I help out as a mod with u/awaiko and u/otherside_b. We do this like a one-chapter-a-day thing: read the chapter for that day and then jump into the discussion posts. There’ll be a fresh thread each day for the chapter you’re on. Posts go up in the evening/early night in North and South America, then a few hours after midnight for Western Europe. If you’re in Asia/Oceania/etc, it’ll hit morning to early afternoon depending where you are. Please try to keep spoilers to the current chapter only. No spoilers past chapter 1 for this discussion. First time readers and re-readers are both totally welcome, but just assume other people haven’t seen what’s coming. If you want, check the rules in the sidebar—if anything’s unclear, ask me or any of the other mods and we’ll help. Okay, onto the book. Discussion prompts: - Are you into horror? Is this your first time with Dracula? - Since we’re seeing everything through Jonathan Harker’s journal—how do you feel about that kind of storytelling? - Anything in chapter 1 really stand out? Do you think Jonathan knows what he’s getting into? Would you have kept going, or turned back if you were surrounded by all that superstition? - What about the descriptions—people, animals, the scenery, the guy in the calèche? - Has anyone tried slivovitz (plum brandy)? And do you like paprika? - After chapter 1, what’s your overall first impression? - Anything else you want to talk about from this chapter? Links: Project Gutenberg Standard eBook Librivox Audiobook

Bram Stoker's Dracula was great!

By bright-wren3948

Just finished *Dracula* by Bram Stoker and honestly it was way more fun/interesting than I thought it would be. I’m not even sure what I expected, but I really liked how it’s put together. All the different journal/notes/recording stuff from the different characters (even random clippings) made it feel a lot more like you’re living through what’s happening, not just reading it. And it was kinda satisfying watching Jonathan and Mina basically get everyone together—Dr Seward, Mr Morris, Lord Godalming, Van Helsing—and they all share what they’ve learned by comparing journals and experiences to figure out how to beat Dracula. Dracula himself is genuinely terrifying. Like, he’s not just “scary guy,” he can shift into mist/bat, show up in places he shouldn’t be, mess with wolves and the weather a bit, and he can even turn people and take control of them. It totally explains why he’s such a famous villain. I also liked how organized and logical the whole plan is once they realize what they’re dealing with. Even with Dracula being ridiculously powerful, Van Helsing (mostly him) pulls from myths/legends plus what the journals say and basically tries every weakness they can use—garlic, sunlight, crosses, not being able to go over water by himself, sleeping in his coffin with the earth, etc. One part that really got me was Mina using her connection to Dracula somehow and spying on him while she’s in that hypnotized state. And it’s also weird that Dracula misjudges it—like he tries to cut the connection, but Mina can still see what he’s seeing, while Dracula can’t see from her side anymore. I don’t fully get why Dracula wouldn’t know that. Is Van Helsing just saying Dracula’s not very sharp because he’s old/young/whatever? Or is he somehow ignorant about his own real limits? Or does he not think in the way he should? Also, I hate that I noticed this, but Mina’s hypnosis stuff reminded me way too much of Will with the hive mind in *Stranger Things* (and later Vecna 😭). The whole “plan to kill the monster” gave me season 5 vibes too, but at least in this case the book actually felt well done. 8.2/10. Super tense, scary, and gripping. Makes sense it’s a gothic fiction staple.

Drácula - Bram Stoker

By early_cat

Acabo de terminar **Drácula** y me dejó pensando en cómo fue el inicio de toda la “cultura vampírica” más conocida y mediática (bueno, eso es lo que creo después de lo poquito que revisé antes de leer). Igual dejo claro: esto es **totalmente subjetivo**. En cuanto a la historia, sin meter spoilers: Jonathan Harker va al castillo de Drácula (Transilvania) por temas de trámites para comprar una casa en Europa. Al principio todo normal, pero luego Jonathan se da cuenta de que el conde se comporta raro, y ya termina cayendo en que no es un ser “de este mundo”. Después Drácula llega a Londres y ahí entra toda una mezcla de religión, ciencia y supersticiones para intentar frenarlo, como con un ambiente de misterio y suspenso. El villano se siente como que está al acecho, pero casi nunca aparece de frente. Lo que sí me pareció más flojo fueron **los personajes**. Las relaciones entre ellos me sonaron un poco forzadas: no termino de entender de dónde sale tanta unión tan leal y valiente entre todos. Puede que no importe tanto porque el verdadero foco es Drácula, que es como protagonista y antagonista al mismo tiempo. Aun así, siento que Bram pudo haberse ahorrado el desarrollo emocional entre ellos con el argumento de que ya se conocían hace años. Sobre **Drácula**: es el eje. Sale poco, pero está presente todo el tiempo; aunque no esté en escena de forma directa, la manera de narrar hace que sientas que siempre está viendo lo que hacen los demás. Eso está bueno, pero también me dejó con ganas de más: la novela no explica mucho su origen ni sus motivaciones. Lo pintan como una criatura malvada y ya, drenando vidas y metiendo caos sin más razón. Para mí, que cuando leo quiero entender más el “por qué”, se vuelve un villano bastante genérico. Esta es mi segunda reseña de libro y estoy intentando escribir más corto para no saturar a quien le interese. Ojalá haya podido transmitir la esencia en estas pocas líneas (eso ya lo dirán los que lo leyeron) y que al menos pique la curiosidad a alguien que todavía no lo haya leído. Y por si acaso: no es para recomendar ni desrecomendar, solo quiero dejar mi opinión desde mi punto de vista.

Dracula as metaphor for the end of feudalism

By QuillTide

I’ve been thinking about the book and I’m not totally sure, but it feels like there’s this big back-and-forth theme between old stuff and “modern” stuff. Like, in the 1800s a lot of Western Europe acted like they were basically unstoppable because of all the new tech and industry and the British Empire and all that. But then a bunch of art started kind of pushing back, like “okay, but are we really invincible?” and “is science/machines all we’ve got?” It also seems to look at the past in a romantic way—religion and faith, and superstition, and people living under harsh rulers, that whole vibe where disease and disasters were dealt with through belief more than medicine. To me, Dracula fits that perfectly. He’s kind of like this living piece of the old era—he talks like he used to rule with total control, and even though that world is gone, he still has these powers that don’t really “die out.” And then he tries to bring that same kind of power into modern England. So I also get why the people who beat him are mostly middle-class, educated types—Van Helsing, Seward, Harker, Mina, Quincey. It’s basically the “new” enlightened crowd. The one exception is Lord Godalming, the landed guy, and he’s more clueless, even if he helps with stuff like horses and dogs. Anyway, it feels like the story is saying the old feudal/violent style is done, and the educated middle class has to rise up instead—but they can’t just ignore the past. They start out kind of sure they’ll handle everything, then quickly realize the enemy isn’t normal, it’s supernatural, and they need to cooperate and think their way through it. Once they figure out how to deal with the vampire, they win. Also, I can see why people go for invasion-style readings of the novel, because at the time Western Europe thought it was way ahead of everywhere else, and acted like other places were behind. In that sense Dracula can feel like an “outsider threat” story too. Am I way off, or is this kind of interpretation something people usually come to?

Review: Dracula

By violetMole

For Dracula Daily Day, I figured I’d finally post a review of one of my go-to favorite novels. I know I’m a little late, but I’m dropping this while Jonathan’s paprika hendl is still fresh and warm. Rating: ★★★★★ I honestly liked this way more than I expected. I don’t really think it works as horror in the “modern” way, but it’s absolutely great as a heroic adventure, and it’s probably one of the best I’ve read. The whole good-vs-evil thing is pretty classic, but it’s done with this real sincerity that actually hit me. I also really loved the cast—everyone has their own kind of chivalry and bravery, and they feel genuinely human. Quincy was my personal favorite, but I’ll always have a soft spot for a cowboy. Everything about it felt like a true classic—from the setup to the characters to the themes. But at the same time, it’s so charming and heartfelt that it doesn’t feel stiff or stuck in the past. It’s still really resonant on its own. If you want recs: **Frankenstein by Mary Shelly:** Yeah, I know this is the obvious pairing, but I swear these two go together way more than just “universal monsters.” The way they’re told has similar energy (Dracula as letters, Frankenstein as stories that kind of nest inside each other). To me, the big difference is that Dracula ends up more hopeful and heroic, while Frankenstein is darker and honestly pretty bleak about humanity. Still, though… who doesn’t like a tragic, can’t-stop-it-from-getting-worse kind of main character? And who doesn’t want TWO? **The Raven Cycle by Maggie Stiefvater:** Okay, this might sound weird, but I kept seeing connections. Different vibe and genre, but they both have groups of unlikely friends getting pulled into supernatural situations, then kind of investigating/chasing different kinds of heroism and bravery.

Dracula Daily finished today, for those who did it - what did you think?

By HarmonyMaple6981

I finally read *Dracula* for the first time last Halloween, and then I kept seeing people talk about Dracula Daily. It sounded like a fun idea, so I signed up for this year. I ended up bouncing between the daily emails and the *Re: Dracula* podcast. I tried to get a group chat going with friends about it too, but a bunch of them just fizzled out once it turned into this months-long thing. I’ve noticed online that it happens a lot. Also, I went on vacation with barely any cell service at the end of September, and catching back up was not great—especially trying to jump into all the 1–2 hour episodes from that week. Overall, though, I thought it was a really gripping way to do the story. Each morning I’d check to see if Jonathon had messaged, and it honestly made the suspense feel way more real. During my commute I’d listen to the podcast and be sitting there wondering where everyone was at and what was going on. I usually preferred the podcast because you can hear the way they say things—the tone and all that. When I first read *Dracula*, I honestly thought Jonathon was kind of dumb, like… come on, something’s obviously off with Dracula. But once you hear the actor’s delivery, it clicked more that he’s writing it all down because it’s freaking him out and he’s trying to steady himself. I’m glad I did it, but I’m not sure I’d ever want to repeat the whole thing. It did start dragging near the end, and I was basically just ready to be done with the “staying on top of it” part. And I know this might be more about the actual story than the daily format, since I had the same issue with Dracula anyway. For anyone who did it—what did you think? Was it as cool as it sounded? Also, did you end up making the paprika chicken or the lizard fashion thing for yourself? I’m really curious what other people thought.

Classic book reviews: Dracula edition!

By rain-saddle4

This is genuinely my all-time favorite book, so yeah, I know I’m probably overhyping it a bit, sorry. First off, the writing. Some of it is just insanely good. There are lines that are straight-up fun to read, like that “Listen to them, the children of the night!” bit. And the whole vibe—castle stuff, that gloomy gothic atmosphere hanging over everything—Stoker nails it. Also, the whole journal/letter format makes it stand out a ton. Getting the story through first-person entries really adds to the suspense, like you’re right there in the mess. As for the characters, I think he made a really great bunch. Jonathan starts off eager and likable, Mina is badass and still really loving, and the rest of the crew just fits together well. I also love how Seward and Helsing play off each other, and honestly the whole “bromance” energy between them is great. One small thing though: Quincy doesn’t end up doing a whole lot during the story, but he’s still awesome. The themes are a lot too. I feel like they connect to what was going on around the time it was written. Off the top of my head, there’s death, sexual repression/obsession, and this big fear of the unknown and foreigners. I’m sure there are more, but those are the ones that stuck with me most. And the queer subtext is honestly kind of incredible for its time—like, those “three wives” moments are a big part of why I think that. It’s a lot. One thing you can’t really ignore is context. Some people say Dracula was at least partly shaped by Stoker’s reaction to Oscar Wilde being locked up, and others think it was also influenced by Stoker being stuck in bed for years. And then there’s the usual talk about other gothic works like Carmilla, plus historical stuff like Vlad. There’s probably a mix of reasons. On the queer subtext: some folks think Stoker might’ve been gay, and that he and Wilde were really close, which could help explain it. But I honestly don’t know for sure, so I’ll just leave that question open. Anyway, I love this book. It’s really well written, super tense, keeps you hooked, and it basically launched a whole genre. 6/5 stars. PS: If you want more thoughts, I’m working through more classics right now, so I’ll have plenty more to say. Hope you enjoyed!

120 years after it's publication, Dracula by Bram Stoker is still grotesque, haunting and beautiful.

By indigoDeer88

I’m reading this and I keep getting shocked that it was written back in 1897. The plot doesn’t really feel old or “stale,” even though the wording is a bit old-timey. And honestly, it’s still really beautiful. But I was not expecting it to be this graphic. It feels like one of the originals that basically kicked off horror in a big way, and it’s also got that action/adventure energy. A few moments that really stood out (not giving away everything): - Jonathan Harker ends up in a “nope” room in Dracula’s place and then gets messed with by three female vampires who basically want his blood. Dracula stops it in the worst way and there’s this baby-in-a-bag situation for them to feed from. - Mina is forced to drink Dracula’s blood after he cuts into himself. - Lucy Westenra’s whole storyline is seriously dark and twisted, and somehow it’s done really well. - Renfield in the asylum is just… grotesque and disturbing, but also weirdly compelling. That said, it’s not like I couldn’t get through it. I wasn’t bored once, and I finished it in a week. The only real downside for me is the “extra” language sometimes makes it drag for a bit, even though it’s gorgeous. What’s also wild is how “mainstream” this seems for being that graphic at the time. I feel like people back when it came out must’ve been absolutely stunned. And even though on the surface it could look outdated in how it talks about women (like the whole “protect them, keep them out of danger” thing), I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Mina honestly feels like the real hero to me. She’s the one keeping track of everything, bringing people together, pushing through after she gets affected, dealing with what it does to Lucy, and using her connection to help track Dracula. She’s forced into the blood stuff and still doesn’t just give up. The guys have their heroics, sure, but Mina feels like the heart of it. The novel is long and maybe a little dated in a few spots, but it still hits. It’s gothic horror, but it also feels kind of modern and cinematic in the action/adventure parts, with those big eerie landscapes and the whole haunted vibe—especially with the sea stuff. Plus the whole journal/newspaper clipping style is honestly super entertaining, and it’s impressive they made that work as well as they did. My only small gripes: Dracula’s rules seem a little inconsistent and sometimes there are way too many “conditions,” which gets confusing. Also, why does he mostly go after women? And why wasn’t Jonathan turned? But I’m guessing there are answers somewhere, and I didn’t feel like it ruined the book for me. Anyway, this is an exceptional novel. The fact that it’s still readable and enjoyable after all this time says a lot.

Read Dracula and it is incredible

By violetHorse16

Just finished reading Dracula since I’m about to watch Nosferatu. And wow, the book is so good—like it’s way ahead of its time. The whole “different characters telling their side” thing makes you feel way more invested in what’s going on. I’ve seen people say the middle drags a bit, but I actually loved the Lucy section. The dread building little by little, starting with that empty ship and then ending with the showdown in the grave—it felt almost like its own full story inside the bigger one. On the other hand, I agree the ending goes on a bit. All the stuff about tracking the ship schedule felt like a slowdown, and splitting the group into three parties didn’t really pay off the way I expected. Also, I’m not totally sure about Dracula keeping Jonathan alive for so long. I kind of assume he was setting him up to be the next Renfield, but I wish it was spelled out more clearly. Minor stuff though. Overall it still feels timeless—groundbreaking and obviously super influential.

Did Dracula have any sort of liking for Jonathan in Bram Stroker's book?

By saddle-green5321

I keep seeing people say he was just messing around and holding him back for later or whatever. But I kind of want to give him the benefit of the doubt, because sometimes it really looks like they’re having actual back-and-forth conversations, like he’s getting something out of it. Dracula doesn’t seem totally cold toward him, at least. And he doesn’t even end up killing him.

[Review & Discussion] Dracula by Bram Stoker

By binary-marten8

I went into this thinking it’d be a slog since I usually avoid 19th-century stuff (too long, too heavy, too slow in my head). But I somehow had Dracula sitting in my Audible sub and figured “why not.” And honestly? It moved way faster than I expected. The early sections were super engaging—like the whole Harker in Transylvania part and then Lucy’s storyline—felt way more modern in the way it’s paced than I thought it would be. I was hooked pretty much right away. I also didn’t expect to like Lucy and Mina as much as I did. It’s still got that period sexism floating around (not really because the book is preaching it, more like the characters and the vibe), but I was surprised by how much depth they felt like they had. My favorite moments were definitely when the vampires show up in person—there aren’t tons of those scenes, but when they do happen, they’re the best parts. The vampire lore is mostly the usual classics (stakes, beheading, mist/bats, garlic, crosses), but there are some bits that felt a little different, like them having to sleep on soil from their homeland. And the funniest/weirdest deterrent to me was the communion wafers thing. It’s like, sure, same general “holy stuff” idea, but the image of Van Helsing basically treating it like a snack while Dracula’s trying to be terrifying is kind of hilarious. There’s also some actual intentional humor that I enjoyed—Van Helsing’s speech quirks, and Renfield just “tidying up” by eating all the flies and spiders. That sort of stuff kept it from feeling too grim the whole time. One thing I noticed though: the pacing feels way better in the first half. After that, some parts dragged a bit, and then the ending/final showdown barely got any room to breathe. The confrontation happens and then it’s like, okay cool, done. On the discussion side of things, I find it kind of interesting that OG Dracula is scary, but it’s also already got that “ooh they’re alluring” energy. The female vampires are written to be this over-the-top seductive, and it contrasts hard with the “pure” feminine ideal other women get stuck with. As someone who likes vampires when they’re both sexy *and* dangerous, that honestly made me feel kind of validated. Also, I low-key enjoyed the period-tech details and how casually they show them—telegraphs, voice diaries, travel schedules—plus little mentions that give you a sense of what life was like then. I did facepalm when the men basically decided Mina shouldn’t be involved because “womanly sensibilities” or whatever. I was worried the book would try to play that off as sensible, but thankfully it didn’t really stick the landing with it. Mina is one of my favorites, but the other characters’ devotion to her sometimes felt a little excessive, like the crying because she feels bad for Dracula’s soul. It wasn’t ruining anything, just felt more funny to me than emotionally intense. Now I want to dig into vampire myths/folklore more before reading more, because the book kind of assumes you already know some of the lore. I’ll probably end up down some YouTube rabbit holes. Overall, I liked it more than I thought I would. It’s surprisingly readable for something that old, and it made me want to chase the origins of a lot of the vampire vibes I already love. And at the same time, I’m really happy I can go back to newer vampire stories where they get to be sexy, violent, and way more explicitly queer than what was possible in 1897.

What does everyone think of Bram Stoker’s Dracula?

By PoppyNeedle5

Yeah, Keanu and Winona’s accents are pretty rough, but it doesn’t really bother me. The movie is honestly so good—like, it’s straight up delicious.

Just finished reading Dracula by Bram Stoker.

By Dawn-Hare20

Really enjoyed this one—glad I finally picked it up. I honestly didn’t expect it to be laid out through diaries from different people, and it worked, but I can’t lie, the ending left me a little underwhelmed. The way Dracula gets taken down didn’t feel like what I was hoping for, especially compared to the movies. Still, overall it was a fun read though. Has anyone read it recently? What did you think?

Is the original Dracula novel by Bram Stoker worth reading?

By ShadowVerse1974

I’m kind of in the mood for some classic horror right now. I’ve been into Edgar Allan Poe for a while, and I’m working through a Lovecraft anthology at the moment. I did spot a pretty nice copy of Dracula in my local shop, though, and now I’m wondering if it’s actually worth it. I’ve heard it’s not really a normal straight-ahead narrative, more like a bunch of letters and journal entries from different people. I liked that style in Lovecraft stuff (like Call of Cthulhu / Mountains of Madness). So, is the original Dracula able to give off that same spooky vibe and mystery, or is it different?

Dracula had the most frustrating ending I have ever read

By RhymeHeron

The first couple hundred pages were really hard to put down, like I was flying through it, except for a few slow moments in the Lucy parts. But honestly, up until Renfield dies, I thought it was one of the most entertaining books I’ve read, and it felt right up there with the classic gothic stuff I love—Frankenstein, Dorian Gray, The Monk, The Turn of the Screw, all that. Then the last 100 pages were just awful. Maybe there’s that tiny stretch for like two pages where Dracula makes his bond with Mina while she’s asleep, but after that it’s mostly just boring filler. It got so repetitive and dull and the ending was totally anticlimactic. I seriously almost quit with about 20 pages left—I was so sick of them waiting around for Dracula and then having Mina hypnotized to talk about waves and stuff. And before that they’re just sneaking from place to place hunting for his boxes like… what? That’s all? I kept thinking surely something would happen—like they get caught, cops get involved, or the group has some internal drama that messes everything up. But no. No big showdown with Dracula either. I’m pissed, and I’m not even trying to be dramatic. I’m just really mad that something that started out so good turned into such a snooze at the end. Sorry for the rant, but that last section felt unforgivable, especially after how great the first 250-ish pages were. I don’t think I’ve ever been this disappointed by a book ending.

Dracula by Bram Stoker - a great classic

By shelfEnzyme

This book really nails that creepy horror vibe. Tons of stuff tried to copy it over the years, but nothing quite hits the same feeling again. You end up right there with Harker in the castle, seeing what he runs into, and then later you’re stuck dealing with the Count in England too. And the ship/crew stuff with the earth boxes crossing the sea is honestly scary in its own way. No matter how many movie versions you’ve watched, if the only “Dracula” you know is the usual one from movies, you haven’t actually met the original proto-vampire this book introduces. It still feels like it’s wandering around in literature, and it brings up those dark little fears you get when you’re alone during a storm or you have to walk past some old rundown graveyard (not a cemetery) where the city still hasn’t put in lights. It’s definitely not like Twilight or Buffy—there’s no friendly, helpful, romantic vampire stuff here, and no sparkly nonsense either. I honestly think there’s a reason we’re tempted to laugh at it, like “come on, seriously?” But it works. It does fear really well, and that’s basically the whole point. And yeah, it’s been around for over a hundred years. There’s a reason for that. I also don’t get why Coppola felt the need to add a love-story angle to something that’s already held up as a straight-up good vs evil classic. Other terrible characters get created in literature all the time, but only a few stick around—and Dracula is one of the ones that endures. It’s because of the chills you get just being in the world Stoker built. The novel has suspense, real mood, and actual decent characters. The movie version I saw has none of that. Dracula isn’t some tragic hero, either—he’s a bloodthirsty psychopath who wants power, and that kind of sadism and craving control can turn people into something awful. I mean, look at what the Nazis did—those weren’t misunderstood people, they were sadistic monsters. Honestly, the Louis Jordan adaptation is better.

Dracula - Did I Miss Something?

By clovermarket9982

Just finished it, and honestly I was pretty let down. There were a couple genuinely creepy/spooky moments (mostly at the start), but after that it mostly didn’t work for me. I know it’s from way over a century ago, but I’m not bothered by old-fashioned writing. So I’m trying to figure out what exactly made it so rough to get through—was it the pacing, or were the characters just not doing it for me?