Auerbach and Knoepflmacher have assembled a fascinating collection of fairy tales by Victorian women writers. The collection offer rarities by well-known writers such as E. Nesbit, Christina Rosetti and Francis Hodgson Burnett and by forgotten, but equally interesting, writers such as Jean Ingelow. Absorbing reads all on their own, the stories also offer interesting contrasts to the better-known Victorian children's fantasies authored by men, such as Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan and the Oz books. The editors' discussion of the stories (and one novel) are enlightening without being heavy-handed. An extra pleasure is the inclusion of several illustrations. This is that rare piece of lit. crit. that can be read aloud to children--I particularly recommend E. Nesbit's stories for this purpose.

This book was good for a short read. It was not as good as the original little women. The book was about 4 sisters Joe, Meg, Beth, and Amy and what their life was like. If you are looking for a good short read this is one I would sugest.

Read the tale of four sisters Meg, Jo, Beth, & Amy as they grow up together. Learn about their hardships as they face each problem thrown at them side by side. This is a wonderfull book and is beautifully writen. I teches someone a lot about the value of family, friends, and true love. This book is more than what others amount to and would reccomend this author to anyone.

Ms. Auerbach takes the reader back to the Victorian ages through the medias of art and literature to examine the image of the female during the period. She portrays the image of the female as "Mythic" - that is, as very broad and also very powerful, effecting the entire age and the ages to come. She discusses such works as Svengali, The New Magdalen, and the artistic works of Rossetti. Her thesis is basically that during the Victorian Era there was a sort of "crisis of faith," and the image of the woman stepped up to replace the ideas held by religions, thereby becoming angelic or demonic. The book is well written, thought provoking and informitive in its presentation.

The first part of the book when Hawker is at Castle Dracula is the best part of the book. It's creepy, it's gothic, it is the best written part of the book. Unfortuanetly it goes down scale from their. I think the problem is that Stoker is that great of a stylist. If your looking for an extremely well written horror novel check out Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes. If you are willing to make allowances at times this is a good book. It still more worth your time than anything on television though.

When I started to read Bram Stoker's Dracula, I thought that I wouldn't enjoy the style that it was written in. I was worried that the book being written in the form of letters would make it boring and dull. I was wrong. Bram Stoker's writing the book in the form of letters makes it very exciting. Reading about the plot through a first person viewpoint gives the book a thrilling suspense that would have been difficult to achieve otherwise. It is a perfect Gothic story, full of romance, love, horror, and human emotions. The only disappointment that I had in the book was the ending. It was slightly anti-climatic, and was a bit of a letdown. Previously to the ending there had been a large and drawn out build up of suspense and excitement. The book ended far too suddenly. Other than that I enjoyed the book immensely. Anybody who likes a good thriller filled with suspense will enjoy Bram Stoker's Dracula.

"Dracula" is not a great novel, it is just a great story. Stoker's device of trying to let all of the characters tell their own story in the first person gets a bit trite after a while, but what is important here is that he sets the rules for what everybody knows about vampires. The first half of the book, while the Count entertains Jonathan Harker and first comes to London and preys upon Lucy and Mina, is the best part of the book. The final chase and staking of Dracula ends up being somewhat anticlimatic. Still, I think this book reads better than "Frankenstein." Oh, and I do know enough about science to recognize that someone drained of blood cannot receive a transfusion from everybody. A minor error given the times, but it still makes me smile. "Dracula" remains the standard by which Anne Rice and the rest who have followed in his footsteps are necessarily judged.

Auerbach, a professor of literature at University of Pennsylvania, dazzles the reader with her fascination for the writings of Daphne Du Maurier, the writer unfortunately best known for the so-called Gothic novel, 'Rebecca'and various film adaptations like Hitchcock's 'The Birds' and Roeg's 'Don't Look Now'.
As a young summer camp participant in the early 50s, Auerbach found herself both entranced by Du Maurier's vicious protagonists and repulsed by her label as a 'romantic' writer of escapist woman's fiction. Her analysis of Du Maurier's work vehemently disputes Du Maurier's dismissal by critics; Auerbach finds her male centered stories brimming with fully drawn characters that derive their strength from a violent/murderous reaction to the females who enter their lives. Du Maurier's female narrators (1st person or otherwise) depend upon their omnipotent male counterparts for identity; the so-called romances of Rebecca, Jamaica Inn and Frenchman's Creek are not driven by love as they are erroneously depicted in the corresponding movie adaptations, but revolve around the transition of the female acquiescing to the strength of the male and becoming dependent on him for identity and definition. These female protagonists, like Du Maurier, herself, initially possess the characteristics of young boys and only become women by losing their independence. Above all, Auerbach describes Du Maurier's haunted inheritance: the necessity of keeping of her heritage alive as initiated by her grandfather George, author of 'Trilby' and her actor father ,Gerald.

This is not a biography of Daphne Du Maurier, but rather a literary critique of her many novels and fantastic short stories. As it relates to Du Maurier's fiction, Auerbach eludes to Du Maurier's penchant towards lesbianism, citing Margaret Forster's book, "Daphne Du Maurier: The Secret Life of the Renowned Storyteller" as her source. She analyzes the movie adaptations, finding Hitchcock's 'Rebecca', 'Jamaica Inn' and 'The Birds' inferior to the original thoughts as penned by the author, herself.

As I have found myself compelled over the years to reread Daphne Du Maurier's lesser known masterpieces, like 'The House on the Strand', 'The Scapegoat', and 'My Cousin Rachel', I fully understand Auerbach's fascination with the author and the strange almost spellbinding hold she has over her readers. I recommend this book to anyone who has been under the Du Maurier spell and realizes that she is much, much more than just a escapist romance writer. Like Patricia Highsmith, her amoral comments on male/female relationships wickedly define the 20th century.

Du Maurier is the author of almost twenty novels, articles, plays, memoirs and short stories; yet is known for a relatively limited handful of popular works. Daphne Du Maurier: Haunted Heiress analyzes her lesser-known volumes and their characters, providing a strong literary analysis of metaphors in her writing, and ethnic and social observations of her choices and times. The result is a revealing, absorbing study.

This book is a great complement to du Maurier's fiction. Auerbach has written a very personal account of du Maurier's life and its relation to her writing. I liked the intimate tone of the book, as if you were talking to Auerbach over coffee; there is nothing over-blown or haughty. Auerbach's analysis of how du Maurier's stories were (mis-)adapted for film is brilliant, as well as Auerbach's discussion about du Maurier's sexuality and prejudices. Quite enjoyable.

Auerbach got one thing right. Vampires are a reflection of the times. Nina as a literary critic has a wonderful sense of lower criticism, in fact, I say she's been bitten by the redaction bug. She longs for a day when the genre will be released from its patriarchal chains and be allowed to act freely as an expression of homosexual love. I personally don't care what your sexual preferences are, I do care that people shouldn't try to change the past, re-write it so to speak, and call it history. The past is static. The present is another story.

I have a question for the more feminist-minded among us. If we get rid of our patriarchal shackles and allow the female--especially the lesbian--vampire to do what she wills with her victims, how does that mitigate against the fact that it is still the female who is seduced (aren't ladies more than helpless masses of hormones?), and destroyed? Meet the new (female) despot, same as the old (male) despot. This is progress? This is something to be proud of? The closest thing to women being on equal terms with men in vampire lore today is Buffy.

Auerbach basically restricted her discussion of vampire lore to the western--read British and American--traditions. There are other traditions, especially Greek and Russian, who represent vampires in a more three dimensional perspective. These monsters are much more than adrenaline and hormones, and would better dignify the embattled in our society, male and female.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with adrenaline and hormones. But if we are reduced to them, then there isn't really that much to us. We might as well embrace ghosts as the accurate representation of who and what we are in society.

Cogently argued, thoughtfully presented, entertainingly written. Since purchasing this book when it was first published, I've reread parts of it many times, just for the enjoyable and lively style of argument. Sure, there are many points I disagree with (but I could say the same for Neitzsche and Wittgenstein, too), but I always put the book down impressed by Auerbach's style and imagination. Others may claim that the book warrant only a single star in terms of a rating, for no other reason than their disagreement with the thesis. I say, whether you wind up agreeing or disagreeing--buying into everything Auerbach says or writing her off as wrongheaded--this book gives you plenty to chew on. If you disagree, ask yourself why you disagree; you may end up embracing the viewpoint of the third mind.