Dracula: Nieumarły

Stoker's Dracula #2

by Dacre Stoker, Ian Holt

Dracula powraca.

Jest rok 1912. Londynem wstrząsa seria makabrycznych zbrodni. Do walki stają dwa najpotężniejsze wampiry - śmiertelnie niebezpieczna i zmysłowa hrabina Elżbieta Batory oraz jej największy wróg - mroczny książę Dracula.

Pogromcy wampirów z Abrahamem van Helsingiem na czele raz jeszcze będą musieli połączyć siły, by stanąć do walki ze złem.
Nie wiedzą, że ich śladem podąża krwawa bestia. Tymczasem policja podejrzewa, że w mieście znów grasuje Kuba Rozpruwacz, a sprawa tajemniczych zbrodni trafia na pierwsze strony gazet.

Dracula powraca, wciąż tak samo uwodzicielski, dręczony wyborem między uczuciem do kobiety a naturą, która zmusza go do okrucieństwa. Zanim odzyska miłość ukochanej, będzie musiał pokonać bezlitosną hrabinę Batory, która zrobi wszystko, by zniszczyć to, co jest dla niego najcenniejsze. Wampiry nie wybaczają zdrady.

Dracula: Nieumarły to pierwsza oficjalna kontynuacja kultowej powieści Brama Stokera Dracula. Z rozproszonych notatek pisarza Dacre Stoker i Ian Holt odtworzyli dalsze losy rumuńskiego księcia.

Z tą książką powraca Dracula.

Jedyny.
Prawdziwy.
Wampir.

Genres: Horror, Vampires, Fiction, Fantasy, Historical Fiction, Paranormal, Gothic

374 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Dacre Stoker, a Canadian citizen and resident of the U.S., is the great-grandnephew of Bram Stoker. He is also the godson of H.G. Dacre Stoker, the commander of the AE2 submarine, whose tactics were instrumental in Gallipoli in World War I.

Dacre, who now calls Aiken, South Carolina home, was a member of the Canadian Men's Modern Pentathlon Team, Senior World Championships in 1979 and coach of the Canadian Men's Modern Pentathlon Olympic Team, Seoul, South Korea in 1988. Dacre is married to Jenne Stoker and is the father of two children. He is the Executive Director of the Aiken Land Conservancy.

Dracula: The Un-Dead is Dacre's first novel.

Reviews

[Margaret · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is there a way to give negative stars?

Against my better judgement and despite my ingrained wariness of “sequels” to classic novels, I ill-advisedly started Dracula The Undead in the optimistic hope that the author’s relationship to Bram Stoker might have inspired him to actually write something more or less worthy, as opposed to just exploiting his illustrious family connection for some quick cash.

Guess how that turned out.

This acorn has fallen so far from the tree that it can’t even see the forest. Apart from the usual problem of sequels, that really no one wants to re-encounter great grand-uncle Bram’s fearless band of vampire slaying heroes in middle age when they’ve all become drunks, drug addicts and failures at parenting, the plotting is prosaic, the writing by turns lead-footed and ham-handed (though it’s impossible to tell which appendages belong to Dacre Stoker and which to his so-called “co-writer” Ian Holt), and – possibly worst of all -, the authors keep Dracula himself, one of the more compelling characters in literature, offstage until the last 40 pages or so, as if they know they can’t handle him for very long. Prior to that, our primary villain is Countess Elizabeth Bathory, an early Dracula bride (so we’re told) who in addition to being a vampire is also a Lesbian – one of the ways, the authors offensively indicate, in which she has turned her back on God, in addition to her propensity for bathing in the blood of slaughtered peasant girls. I prefer my vampire fiction without a political/religious agenda, thank you so much.

About a third of the book is a boringly written rehash of Stoker’s original, via flashbacks, memories, and Francis Ford Coppola’s movie version (just in case anyone is actually reading the sequel without knowing what happens in the first one) and the freshly minted part of the novel is an even more boring succession of clashes between men and vampires, although their boringness may be a perverse kind of achievement given how much graphic violence these scenes contain. Bram Stoker wasn’t Henry Irving’s general manager at the Lyceum for 27 years for nothing, and while he may not be one of the great stylists of all time, he understood how to work an audience - how to build suspense and sexual tension (yes, even in the 19th century) and how to manipulate their imagination for maximum effect. His talent-free descendant apparently thinks it’s sufficient to announce roughly every page and a half that someone or other is in “grave danger,” and then follow that up with one of the aforementioned scenes of stomach-turning carnage, which for all their lurid detail are curiously unaffecting.

DRACULA THE UNDEAD is an Unsatisfying Unbook. I’d like my time, and my Dracula, back, please.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

After my latest re-read of Bram Stoker’s famous piece, I chose another story with eerie undertones, though this one is sure to stir up some controversy. It serves as a sequel to the classic original, in which Dacre Stoker works with renowned Dracula historian Ian Holt to bring this continuation of the story to life in fine form. Chilling and complex, this is surely a piece for Hallowe’en literature fans to add to their collection and which will not collect dust.

It is now 1912, twenty-five years since Count Dracula has crumbled into dust. Can this have been long enough for those who were directly involved in the hunting to have shelved their memories and moved on? Dr. Jonathan Seward, who was instrumental in the original chase, has turned into a washed-up medical professional, addicted to morphine and chasing demons all across Europe.

Young Quincey Harker, born in the final pages of the original novel, has been sent to France to pursue his legal studies, but is drawn into the world of stage acting. Quincey is further impressed when Shakespearean actor, Basarab, takes him under his wing, an honour the young actor could not have expected.

When Quincey stumbles upon a stage-play version of Dracula, directed by Bram Stoker himself, he begins to learn some of the long-buried secrets his parents kept from him. Trying to digest it all, there seems to be a presence in and around London, as the original collective who killed Dracula meet their ends in horrific fashion.

Meanwhile, 16th century Countess Elizabeth Bathory has returned to wreak havoc on those seeking to explore the Dracula question a little more. Bathory has a long history with the Romanian prince and may hold the answers that others seek, though she is more interested in new blood to satiate her extreme hunger. What’s brought Countess Bathory back to visit those whose adventure a quarter-century ago rid the world of blood-sucking evil?

With a new collection of characters and tapping into Holt’s expertise in the field of all things Dracula, Stoker does well to carry the torch for his great-granduncle and entertains curious fans throughout. Perfect for those readers who enjoyed the original Dracula and who can accept applying some of the history of this Romanian prince, alongside a continuation of a classic piece of 19th century literature.

I have heard it said that one ought never mess with the classics, which is why parody pieces get a major eyebrow raise from literary purists. However, this piece that seeks to act as a sequel to Bram Stoker’s classic, not only grounds itself in seriousness, but also has the blessing of the Stoker family (and was penned by a descendent).

Stoker and Holt look to progress the entire Dracula story by adding backstories to the well-established characters who brought to piece to life, as well as adding fresh angles to Dracula in this follow-up. The eerie nature of the original piece is replaced by a history that permeates the narrative, allowing the patient reader to discover much more and delve deeper than the late 19th century novel permitted.

The story itself differs greatly from the original, not only because it is told in true narrative (as opposed to journals and letters), but also serves to provide cameos for many famous individuals (Bram Stoker and John Barrymore, to name a few) as well as pulls on some of the history of the original novel’s reception and development into a stage-play.

Ian Holt’s influence can also be seen, as the story pulls on numerous Dracula stories from centuries ago and where Stoker may have developed his ideas for this vampire that became the go-to reference for all blood-imbibing creatures.

Some of the narrative and historical assertions do keep the reader wondering, but it is difficult not to downplay the tidbits as being wrapped in a way to fill cracks that time has not caulked. As I mentioned above, some purists will scoff at this book simply because it seeks to build on a classic that can survive on its own. Others will mock it for lacking the same flowing prose or spooky foresight. While I will not engage in trivial banter about this being ‘allowed’ or not, I will say that Dacre Stoker’s piece served as a wonderful complement to my recent reading of Bram Stoker’s classic.

Kudos, Messrs. Stoker and Holt for entertaining and engaging me at times as I made my way through this novel. I know there are massive footsteps to fill, even to stand alongside the classic novel and I applaud you both for the effort.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[C.O. Bonham · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was horrible. If you have ever read the classic novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker DO NOT READ THIS. It took me forever to read because I kept getting mad at it. I only finished it so that I could write this review with a clear conscience. This is nothing but one really long Fan Fiction written by Ian Holt and endorsed by Dacre Stoker.

First of all it can not be a sequal to the Classic novel if you rewrite the events of the Classic novel. They don't even follow the format established in "Dracula" of Letters, Journals, Newsprint. Instead the manuscript that these two wannabees write is nothing but a standard Third Person narrative.

I Can't believe that the Stoker name is attatched to this. How is it honoring your ancestor if you make him a character in your book and accuse him of stealing the idea for his novel? Though over use of Sex and gore certainly smacks of Hollywood which is why I am guessing that Ian Holt wrote most of this.

In short I am half suprised that the Vampires didn't Sparkle.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

had higher expectations... female super vampire bathory chases Dracula, well, liked the Dracula of old a lot more...

[Sandi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dracula The Un-Dead may easily be the worst book I ever read. The only reason I stuck with it to the end was to see how many atrocities one book could possibly contain. The grammar is horrific. The story is overly melodramatic. It was implausible. It reads like bad fan fiction. It tries to throw in every gee-whiz technological marvel of the era, including the Titanic. (One character speeds down the road in his automobile at 10 miles per hour.) The horror is repetitive, poorly-written, and downright silly. There's a detective trying to solve a crime, but the reader already knows what's going on, so the mystery isn't very mysterious. In fact, you always know what's coming next. It even has Bram Stoker as a character and one chapter is a mini-biography of his life!

I think I'm going to go give The Historian another star. It was incredibly boring and turned Dracula into a nerd, but at least it had some suspense and was well-written. That book was a much better sequel to Bram Stoker's classic than this wanna-be.

[Sud666 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dacre Stoker shows us that the Stoker name has survived throughout the years (Dacre is a great-grand-nephew) but the writing talent has not. I was expecting something good and different. One out of two isn't bad. It IS different.

Taking place 20 years or so after the evnts of the classic original, this takes place mostly in London. The premise is that the intrepid band of adventurers who fought Dracula is being killed one by one. Who is responsible? From here we stumble across the characters from the original (they have NOT aged well), Countess Elizabeth Bathory, Dracula and Scotland Yard chasing Jack the Ripper. If that sounds out there-it kinda is.

Still the story was, at best, mediocre. It never caputres the gothic darkness of the original work. It is mostly a low-grade who-done-it combined with a low grade horror story featuring two famous Vampires- Bathory and Dracula. Where this book fails is in the reinvention of the Dracula myth. Framing him as a God-fearing Vampire, who was always serving God is ummmm a bit of a stretch. The attempt at explaining his actions in the former novel as a means of him fighting Bathory (the true villain) or that Stoker/Van Helsing lied about his intent and actions is too revisionist for words. It does not help the story and lowers it to the level of a WB show with silly vampire teens.

It wasn't terrible but the evident promise of the story, in the start of the novel, is truly wasted. The ending was not to my liking. None of the characters, save Bathory, have any true personality. Most of the original cast have devolved into Trgolodytic caricatures of themselves and the new hero of Quincey (Mina and Johnathon's son) is a silly prat. Doesn't make for a great read. Still it is ok. Considering some of the awful books out there this one will at least keep you reading till the end. That's when you will think "Did I just waste my time?" Not a good feeling to end a book on.

[Tessa Nadir · Rating 1 out of 5]

Din pacate, in ceea ce priveste aceasta carte trebuie sa fiu brutal de sincera si sa va destainui ca singurul lucru infricosator este nerozia teoriilor pe care autorul le lanseaza. Citind romanul ramai cu aceeasi senzatie ca atunci cand vezi pe cineva dragut pe strada, de care ai putea sa te indragostesti, dar care cand incepe sa vorbeasca te sperie pur si simplu cu cantitatea de ineptii debitate. La fel si aici, cand treci de frumos ilustrata coperta si deschizi paginile acestei carti ti se face parul maciuca si iti vine sa-ti pui neuronii la adapost.
In general nu este o idee stralucita sa te apuci sa scrii continuari la opere celebre si de referinta ale literaturii, chiar daca te numeri printre descendentii lui Stoker. De foarte putine ori continuarea se ridica la valoarea originalului. Probabil singura intentie a autorului a fost sa dea o mica lovitura financiara pe spatele primei carti.
Si ca sa intelegeti ce vreau sa spun, ajungi sa citesti 300 de pagini din 370 si nici urma de personajul principal Dracula. Am inteles ca vampirii nu se arata usor - mai ales ziua, atunci cand am citit eu romanul - dar totusi, din titlu reiese clar cine ar trebui sa fie protagonistul. Abia pe la pagina 300, ca o incercare disperata, ni se releva identitatea lui Dracula si cititorul nu intelege de ce un vampir care poate sa ia forma unui liliac, a unui lup sau chiar a cetii trebuie sa se deghizeze intr-un muritor antipatic.
Ei bine, din punctul cartii de vedere, personajul principal este Elisabeta Bathory, care este si ea vampir desigur si in legatura cu care se fac fel si fel de teorii care mai de care mai halucinante: in primul rand se crede ca ea ar fi verisoara lui Dracula si fusese muscata de acesta, ca mai apoi tot ea sa-l ucida la finalul primei parti din razbunare. Contesa este imbracata ca un barbat, calatoreste cu terifianta trasura fara vizitiu si fiind personajul negativ al cartii se confrunta la final cu Dracula insusi.
Celelalte personaje, spre deosebire de clasicul roman sunt de-a dreptul idioate: Mina Harker nu imbatraneste si este mereu nesatioasa, tandjind dupa "printul ei intunecat". Jonathan, sotul ei este un netrebnic palid si decazut, fiind mereu prin carciumi sau la femei, neglijandu-si sotia si gasindu-si sfarsitul intr-un mod total stupid.
Van Helsing, din cel mai mare luptator anti-vampiri ajunge un batran ramolit care chiar trece de partea lui Dracula incercand sa-i gaseasca scuze si sa-l afiseze intr-o lumina pozitiva. Mai mult, la un moment dat, chiar el devine vampir si incearca sa-l muste pe Quincy, fiul lui Jonathan cu Mina, care de fapt il are ca tata pe Dracula - nu va asteptati nu-i asa?
Iar cireasa de pe tort, in roman apare insusi Bram Stoker, care isi regizeaza piesa dupa propriul sau roman si care este omorat fara niciun rost. Iata ca, dupa ce ii ucide creatia, Dacre Stoker nu se opreste aici si isi omoara chiar si stra-strabunicul.
Desigur ca din acest talmes-balmes nu putea sa lipseasca nici celebrul Jack Spintecatorul si in legatura cu el se formeaza o teorie putin spus halucinanta. Un detectiv de la Scotland Yard, care este in cautarea infamului criminal, ajunge sa creada initial ca Van Helsing ar fi acela, dar romanul nu-l lasa prea mult in ceata si ne dezvaluie ca de fapt Jack Spintecatorul ar fi o femeie si anume, ati ghicit: Elisabeta Bathory. De-a dreptul fascinant!
Cel mai mult mi-a displacut ca Dracula este readus la viata, dupa ce se presupune ca a fost omorat in prima parte, dar si ca se incearca la modul cel mai disperat si insistent sa fie transformat in personaj pozitiv. I se gasesc tot felul de circumstante atenunante, scuze patetice si toata lumea incerca sa-l zugraveasca drept erou din antierou.
Sfarsitul romanului, infruntarea cu Elisabeta Bathory reprezinta fraternizarea cu oamenii a lui Dracula ceea ce mi s-a parut de-a dreptul ieftin. Mai mult, in final avem parte si de celebra scena dintre tata si fiu din Star Wars.
Ca lucruri amuzante, imi aduc aminte de o scena in care apare Lucy iar fostul ei logodnic spune ca in incapere mirosea a liliac. Eu am crezut ca era vorba despre animalul in sine si chiar ma intrebam cum miroase acesta dar desigur se referea la parfumul ei floral. De asemenea sunt multe scene in care autorul incearca sa ne explice logica unor lucruri subliniind de mai multe ori ceva ce noi am priceput din prima (de exemplu cand Mina vede trecutul Elisabetei pentru ca fusese muscata de aceasta). Probabil pentru cititorii americani se insista asa de mult la aceste aspecte.
Fanilor primei parti poti sa le zic cu mana pe inima ca nu pierd nimic daca nu citesc aceasta continuare care doar o sa-i indigneze. Pentru ceilalti cititori insa, portia de ras este garantata.

[Anita · Rating 1 out of 5]

disappointed

a lot.


i feel like reading a crossover fan fiction by an amateur author who got a bit confused whether to make his own story or use his great grand uncle's famous character to sell the book.

you see, there's count dracula and there's countess Elizabeth bathory. both are generally known as blood drinker and sadist. but after reading the book title: dracula the un-dead, i do believe we all assume that this story is about count dracula, not bathory. hey, guess what? the book consist 90% bathory and 10% dracula

why bother named it: Dracula the un-dead? why can it be: Bathory bigger than dracula?

in the end, i have one thought: how come there's "THE OFFICIAL SEQUEL" labeled before the tittle? was it because the author is related to Bram Stoker?

this book, doesn't even come near Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian.
and even extremely far away to Bram's Dracula. sooo far away.

[Cheryl Marren · Rating 4 out of 5]

I know that many people have readily slated this book as being ridiculous. That's up to them. I like to take books as I find them and rate them on how well written and well-researched I think they are, whether I can learm anything from them, whether they show me a new way of looking at things and finally (and mostly) whether I enjoy reading them. For me, this ticked all the boxes in the affirmative. It's probably not perfect, possibly not the vision Bram Stoker would have imagined. But at the end of the day, this is a good book written with good intentions and I think it's great. So there.

[Ethan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Words cannot describe how awful this book is, but I'll give it a try. The authors basically say that everything in Bram Stoker's Dracula is wrong. Vampires don't fear crosses. They're not villainous. Dracula wasn't a villain, he was a good guy. Dracula didn't die as outlined in Bram Stoker's novel but somehow survived turning into dust, only to die a horribly-written and ridiculous death in Dracula the Un-dead. Mina Harker didn't hate Dracula, she loves him and had an affair with him back when they were trying to hunt him in Bram Stoker's novel?! Are you f****** kidding me?!

To boot, the authors make Bram Stoker a character in this novel, and they kill him! It really seems like Dacre hated his distant relative and was trying to slander his masterpiece. The fight scenes are also hilariously bad, and mostly consist of people throwing other people across rooms over and over again. Where Bram's masterpiece is foreboding and terrifying, this book is never once even remotely scary. It fails fundamentally to even remotely resemble Bram Stoker's Dracula.

The writing also tried to be somewhat elegant and sometimes used words from the early twentieth century, but then slipped horribly past the halfway point, as if the authors stopped trying. Once they referred to a man riding in the front of a horse-drawn carriage as "riding shotgun". Early in the novel there are also lots of historical references to buildings and events, making the book feel well-researched, but later in the book these completely disappear in favour of terrible writing right out of a B-movie script, further proving the authors gave up past the halfway point of the book.

Disgraceful, ridiculous, horribly written, and above all insulting to Bram Stoker, his masterpiece, and vampire mythology in general, Dracula the Un-dead may just be the worst book ever written.

[Lector Perruno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Veo que el libro tiene muchas críticas negativas. Desde mi punto de vista, su principal fallo es ser promocionado como la secuela oficial de Drácula. Es obvio que eso le viene grande. Ni creo que sus autores pretendiesen que fuese exactamente eso cuando lo escribieron. No lo es.
Leí Drácula de Stoker en 2013, y en seguida se convirtió en uno de mis libros favoritos de todos los tiempos. Esta novela siempre me produjo recelo.
¿Por qué le he dado cinco estrellas?
Lo primero, altera la historia previa (los hechos de Drácula), es otra versión diferente. Incluso incorpora elementos de la peli de Coppola (gran filme) y remodela la historia original en todos los aspectos, incluso fechas, para que sean posibles los hechos que suceden.
Segundo, no se parece ni remotamente al libro de Bram Stoker. Los personajes son incluso diferentes... No está escrito en estilo epistolar ni pretende imitar la pluma de Stoker...
Es una versión libre, un gran fan pic, como tantísimos otros. Para mí, es una buena novela de vampiros. Recoge cosas de aquí y allá, remodela otras, moderniza/versiona/da un giro a los míticos personajes de la novela...
Quizás tenga un gusto deplorable, pero he estado enganchadísimo durante su lectura. He disfrutado de las referencias a autores victorianos, datos que no conocía de sus biografías, localizaciones, ritmo frenético, una narración muy cinematográfica... Por el gran entretenimiento que me ha procurado, y por Mina y Erzsébet Báthory (personajazos), le doy cinco estrellas redondas.
Deja algunos cabos (muy pocos) para una hipotética secuela. Lástima que no la haya :(

[Konnersdad · Rating 1 out of 5]

So I read this after reading Dracula, which I throughly enjoyed. I forced myself through this turdfest of a book until the bitter end. So Dracula's a good guy, now? Oooookay? Jonanthan is now a drunk in a loveless marriage? Ooooookay? Mina got knocked up by Dracula and she's in love with Dracula? Seward's a morphine addict? Van Hesling (my favorite charter from the pervious book)is a tratious old codger? Lesbian incest with an old fat aunt? The Titanic? Okay stop!!!!! None of these characters showed ANY inclination of ending up like this! This is worse than the Twilight books and that saying something!!!! These people obviously care alot about each other and for them to end up like this, Dacre you're lucky that great uncle Bram didn't raise from the dead himself and strangle you for this kidneystone of a book. How did Dracula come back? Why kill off the great charaters in the first book and make them into a bunch of hateful loosers? And then add your great uncle Bram as a charater? This is BY FAR the worst book I ever read. Ian Holt, my dogs are better Dracula experts than you. I only wish I could give this horrid piece of trash 0 stars. The only good thing about this book is that at least Dracula didn't sparkle.

[Roberta · Rating 2 out of 5]

I met Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt at BookExpo and got an autographed ARC copy of this book for free. That's the good news -- I got it for free. I liked Dacre Stoker (notice how I didn't mention Ian Holt...) and I wanted to like his book but I was disappointed. I was hoping for more Dracula and less Elizabeth Bathory and Jack the Ripper. Actually, there were about 400 characters in the book and the game of recognizing them started distracting me from the plot. Besides for characters from the original book, Bram Stoker was a character in the book plus lots of the real people that he associated with as well as many characters with the names of actors who have played Dracula. For example, there was a character in the book named Langella. There were some good action scenes and Ian Holt probably hopes that it will make a great movie.

Two stars was an act of charity because Dacre Stoker seems like such a nice guy.

[Rahul Matthew · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF the book a 30% and flipped through the pages!!!I know flipping a Dracula book!!

"This book just drives a stake in the heart to any Draculian fans out there, such a pity"

The curse of the sequel to one of the Legendary Dracula-Cannot believe this exists!!!


Why any expectations from this book for "Anybody"-It is the actual sequel to the Original

-Written by a descendant to Bram Stoker (Dacre Stoker)
-Six freaking years in the making(assuming they did " Any" sort of research)
-It is about Dracula(The Legendary Vampire)
-Co-author with Ian Holt(Draculian historian)

Cardinal Sin of the Book :- -Poor writing, too many characters to follow,
-need painkillers to read(Draculian fan in disgust)
-Dracula became a Good guy and too emotional for my liking(Well if he bites your neck you can consider it a "love bite")
-Bram Stoker is a character for no damn reason.
-The book was made like a screenplay for a Hollywood flop.

[Cyndie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. I did not go into the book expecting to be gripped by the literary writing style of Bram Stoker and perhaps that is why I was able to enjoy the book. If you want the classic, then go read the classic. Dracula the Un-Dead is a strong book that stands on its own.

Having just read Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I was eager to learn what had become of the beloved characters. To be completely honest I was disappointed by the hum drum ‘they all lived happily ever after’ ending of the original.

Stoker and Holt put an end to the happily ever after of the first book setting the tone for the sequel. The reflection of the horrific events imparted on the characters was invigorating and gripped me from the very first page. No one was safe, and I couldn’t wait to find out who was going to die next.

The characters stay true to form. The seeds for their implosion were all set into motion during the original book. Stoker and Holt simply pulled the reader ahead 25 years and let the reader see Dracula’s true destruction; the way he had won the battle even in his death.
Stoker and Holt give the reader just enough back-story to understand what happened in the original and even answer some of the questions I was left with. Dare I say, if classics aren’t your thing you can easily pick up this book and enjoy it.

The story is fast-paced, with rich characters, and a good old vampire plot. No, it is not the classic, but it is definitely worth a read.

[Petra · Rating 1 out of 5]

Update. Finished listening to this tale about "the band of heroes" (a phrase heard endlessly over the course of this story). UGH!
Suffise to stay: give this book a miss. You won't be sorry. Everything you liked in Dracula will be missing from these pages. Just the opposite. Where Bram Stoker used words to mount tension, adventure and mystery, Dacre Stoker fills his pages with whiney, pale characters and lots of violence. And blood.
Run!


OMG the melodrama! Really, I don't see a high rating for this book. Stereotypes, bad writing, crudity (I'm no prude but a story, even with violence, should revolve around the story and not how much gore can be added in a few pages). And, these last 3 discs are excrutiatingly slow. Dacre is padding his work.
I find it rather disrespective for Dacre to include his great-uncle (??) as a character and then make him into something of a fool. Dacre, remember that without Bram, you wouldn't ever have published a book. You're not that good.
1 1/2 discs to go. Maybe I'll push through tomorrow and get it over with.

[Maria Mhemnoch · Rating 2 out of 5]

De este libro hice muchos comentarios en el avance de la lectura, que recomiendo leer para completar este comentario final.
No le quería darle 2 estrellas, porque algunas partes han estado muy bien, y tengo marcados con 2 otros libros que me han gustado menos pero, al final, me he decantado por no subirlo a 3 porque "lo venden" como la secuela más o menos oficial (por estar escrito por un familiar y "basarse" muy entre comillas, en notas de Bram Stoker, sobre todo, personajes que al final descartó en la obra original) y no es para naaada una continuación digna.
Tiene mucha incoherencias (de fecha y hechos) que al final están "explicadas". Las fechas se entiende, ya que intenta meter muchos personajes históricos reales que, si no las modificaran, no los podrían meter, como al propio Bram Stoker, Jack el destripador... cosa que también me ha molestado porque, parece que los meten a mansalva, para asegurarse el éxito de la obra. Aprovechan el apellido de uno de los autores y todos esos personajes famosos y, en mi opinión, en vez de darle valor a la obra, se lo quita.
Si no hubiera sido una secuela y me hubieran puesto la historia como si fuera nueva, con unos personajes cualquiera, se llevaría las tres estrellas ¡seguro!
Otra cosa que me ha hecho quedar con la boca abierta es que (tranquil@s, no es spoiler, porque desde el principio del libro se sabe, aunque puede ser SPOILER DE LA 1ª PARTE "DRÁCULA"), en las explicaciones del final dice que la obra original de "Drácula" se prestaba a hacer continuación porque el final era ambiguo.
Señor@s, yo no se ustedes, pero yo en que le claven un puñal en el corazón, que lo expongan al sol y que se convierta en ceniza... no le veo la ambigüedad por ningún sitio.
Otro contra es que el detective llega a poner de los nervios con las deducciones que hace. Vale que, nosotros como lector, le llevamos ventaja en el caso, pero es que muchos de sus razonamientos no tienen sentido.
Un pro que le vi al principio era la aparición de Bathory, que parecía que iba a ser muy interesante y (parecía también) quería solventar los toques machistas de la obra original, pero no. Porque parece que cada autor ha escrito una parte, pero sin estar de acuerdo con el otro.
También cambia mucho de estilo.
Como decía en los comentarios parciales, sobre todo de mitad o así, casi hasta el final, te mete capítulos cortos, los deja en un momento muy interesante, y cuando lo retoma, resulta que era una tontería y te corta todo el ritmo de la lectura.
Aún así, no todo es malo. Al principio tiene buena pinta y tiene algunas escenas de acción que están muy bien. Los personajes de Basarab y Quincy de los mejores, aunque este último tenga sus momentos "tontos".
Tampoco me gustó que jugaran con el romance de Mina y Drácula. Parece que como en la peli funcionó, pues lo han querido aprovechar. También la línea de los vampiros modernos porque funciona. Pero en mi opinión, si Drácula como monstruo también funcionó, ¿por qué cambiarlo?
Al final resulta que tenemos a una Mina entradita en años, que se supone que era una mujer resuelta y fuerte para su época, poco menos que como una adolescente con "la edad del pavo".
Quieren vendernos una historia de amor cuando en la obra original, por mucha ambigüedad que quieran explicar ellos, simplemente era el influjo de un monstruo sobre la psique de una persona.
¡De toda la vida se sabe que los vampiros hacen esas cosas! jajaja
El final resulta muy épico y movidito que, una vez más, si se hubiera tratado de personajes cualquiera, me hubiera gustado mucho, pero aquí suena un poco a fantasmada y cambia otra vez el estilo de escritura de la historia.
Resumiendo: Se han querido aprovechar y juntar mucho popurrí de factores que funcionan y, siempre en mi opinión, la han fastidiado.
Si hubiera sido una historia original, sin basarse en personajes famosos de ficción o reales, hubiera sido infinitamente mejor, y si hubiera estado escrita en un estilo constante.
Si te gustó "Drácula" no te lo recomiendo.
Si eres fan de los vampiros modernos y te gusto la parte inventada de la peli de Coppola y no te hizo gracia que pusieran a "Drácula" de monstruo de toda la vida, entonces vale.

[Lilly Luna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dacre Stoker, an author athlete and working in films and movies, is the great-grandnephew of the legend himself, Bram Stoker. He decided to carry on with the family duty and dive into the world of the undead.
The co-author Ian Holt studied creative writing and later became an author himself.

In "Dracula the Undead", we follow the story of the surviving characters from Bram Stoker's Orginal "Dracula", which are now 25 years older and still profoundly traumatised. Everything takes place in the year 1912 in London. Quincey Harker, the son of Jonathan and Mina, named after Quincey Morris, who died in the original novel, just left his law studies for the stage. In the upcoming production, he encounters Bram Stoker himself, who is currently working and bring his book "Dracula" to life. In the play, plunges Quincey discovers the dirty secret of his parents and how these affected them. Maybe he is still out there? Waiting...
Meanwhile, the Blood-Countess Elizabeth Bathory come to England and brings pure misfunction on our once beloved heroes. She is pure evil and is present to destroy everything in her way. Will history repeat itself our can Van Helsing's allies stop these evil monsters?

This novel is writing in the past tense, and we view it in the third person. It is not an epistolary novel like the original, and it is writing in very accessible language.

If I could give this novel negative stars, I would trust me on that. I have never read such utter rubbish in my entire life. Suppose you loved "Dracula" by Bram Stoker as I do, please never consider reading this "novel". The story does not feel like it is a continuation of the original.

For example, Jonathan Harker is a drunk and cheating arse trapped in a loveless marriage, while Mina is mourning her loss of Dracula, whom she despised in the original.

Additionally, the authors refer to Dracula as a prince who would be is correct if you speak of Vlad Draculae, the real person, but not Dracula, the fictional character. The language, as already mentioned, is highly accessible, and you can tell that this. The book was written more than 100 years after the Frist one.

Moreover, the whole storyline with Elizabeth Bathory is just gross. Yes, she was a serial killer and a horrible person, but did the authors make her a lesbian? NO! Furthermore, they explain her lesbianism to her hatred of God, and it was caused due to her loveless marriage. The bit where Bathroy slept with her aunt felt horrible to read. It was weird to read about her since she was a living human being, although a monstrous one; I am not too fond of the authors' decision to include her. Remember, this book was written in 2009.

Additionally, did they have to include Bram Stoker?! This was not a wise choice, in my opinion, since it burls the lines between reality and fiction, which only made this novel worse than it already was. The rivalry with Oscar Wilde and Bram Stoker felt a bit unnecessary.

Please, do me a favour and do not buy this book or support these authors. It is a true shame what they did to Dracula and its characters.

TW: Addiction, Mental Illness, Blood, Gore, Incest, Death, Lesbophobia, Murder, Grief

[Duncan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a huge fan of the original Dracula, and I find this latest offering by Dacre to be paltry in comparison. I suppose the social context in which it was written has a lot to do with it. A lot has changed in the time between the two books, (the original was published in 1897 and the latter was published in 2009) and the sort of graphic sadism and demonized lesbianism prevalent in this book is indicative of a generation obsessed with shock value. For an example of this, please see any film in the growing genre of torture-porn (i.e Saw 1-47, Hostel, etc.) I find the whole thing quite off putting, and would love a return to the days when authors and directors didn't have to resort to this sort of thing to provoke a reaction from their audience.
Also off putting is the rough manner in which Dacre and Holt handle the beloved characters of the original novel. I realize that it's important to the continuation of the story to further develop these characters, but did they have to turn every single person into a sad shell of their original selves?
And finally, there seems to be some confusion on the authors part as to which story line they're continuing. Where in the original book was there any reference to Mina 'betraying' John and falling in love with Dracula? In the original, Mina was a victim of Dracula, a heartless demon who only sought blood to prolong his own life. Other elements of the original core characters also deviate from the first novel. Perhaps they've confused Bram Stoker's Dracula with Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"?
Now keep in mind that I've only read so much of the book. This is but a first impression, and everything I've said up to this point could be turned on its head within the next few pages. The book itself is an exciting read, and I do enjoy the historical elements Dacre has added to enrich the story and anchor it in the real world. I am not a fan, however, of the wanton use of Bram's name and reputation by his far removed descendant to cash in on a pop-culture craze. Perhaps the tag line to his book should read "The true sequel to the Movie version of the original classic, as re-imagined by Bram Stoker's great grandnephew and some other guy." Perhaps not as catchy, but certainly more true.

ps- comments and corrections are welcome, just don't spoil it for me.

[CaliGirlRae · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have to say I was ecstatic to read Dracula Undead, especially knowing it was written by a direct descendant from the Stoker family and authorized by its estate. I found myself excited when I received the gorgeous book in dark red and crinkled aged paper stain design that made it look like it was ancient. Even the pages themselves were gorgeously put together. I was a little nervous about the blurb which told where all of our heroes were. Heroes that fell from grace, sure, but maybe there's a spiffy character arc that puts them through the ringer and they will eventually arise to fight through it all.

Alas, no.

As I read Dracula Undead, my excitement slowly waned. From the gory S&M type of opening with Countess Elizabeth Bathory killing a hapless young woman to Jonathan Harker's infidelity, Mina's mooning over Dracula (because she somehow lost her virginity to him??), to Harker's vicious impaling, Seward's junkie status and Quincey's anger and disdain for his parents....ah, I can't go on. Everything that was amazing, classic and wonderful about Dracula was unraveled in a few chapters of this "sequel". Where Dracula created a sense of dread, fear and uneasiness through the power of word and mood, Dracula Undead bashes the reader over the head with gore, dismemberment, impalement and depraved characters. Bram Stoker himself even makes an appearance, which could have been interesting, but instead falls flat as a washed up has-been in a loveless marriage trying to regain his once literary status by making his famous Dracula into a play. Played by actor John Barrymore no less. It is the last reach for struggling to regain his celeb status for the last time. Dracula himself is merely in the book despite given a description in the blurb and in the title. In fact, everyone but Dracula is in this book including Jack the Ripper style murders and investigations.

Dracula Undead suffers from too many cooks in the kitchen with no idea where to go. Once the reader gets an idea for where the story may be headed, it takes another turn as if the camera cuts away from this scene to start a completely new one and so on and so on. There are about four or five stories going on at the same time with too many characters which doesn't give the story the focus it deserves.

I couldn't help noticing that this book isn't quite a sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula, at least definitely not in mood and continuity. Its action packed, dark, gory blood splattered and sexually drenched pages matched that of a narrative version of a script for a big budget follow up to Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. As I looked into the making of this book, I found out Ian Holt, co-writing with Dacre Stoker, was the main driving force for this book and he is indeed a screenwriter who plans to bring this book to the big screen next year. I don't think I'll be watching it. I wasn't too jazzed about Coppola's Dracula and from the mixture of real life Bathory mixed with fictional characters (complete with incestuous deflowering by her Aunt and a blood relation to Dracula himself), it looks like we'll be seeing more of the same as in the first film.

Dracula Undead as the inklings of a well written story that falls short. I did like the setting (until it turned into Blade: 1912) and the characters definitely had passion. Unfortunately, from the author's voice and treatment of said characters, I get the feeling that the authors didn't like the characters nor Stoker himself very much. Dacre Stoker has said in a recent article that "all the Stokers in his generation were pretty blasé" about legacy of Dracula. It definitely shows in how different and cold these characters are from the original story.

If this book was called something else in another world with other characters and a completely separate situation, the chance of enjoyment would be a bit higher (barring the overstuffed narrative at times). But knowing and loving Dracula by Bram Stoker, the history for how it came about and the wonderful addition it's given to horror and gothic literature, I can't recommend or enjoy this current book.

There's another book similarly titled Dracula Undead by Freda Warrington that will be re-released this December. I hear it keeps the tone, continuity and care for the characters introduced in Dracula. I think that one may be more enjoyable.

[Richard]

Calling this book an official sequel is ludicrous! The novel Dracula lays out in frightening detail Count Dracula's cruel nature and his plans to travel to England to feed off the teeming millions there. This pathetic excuse to cash in on a family name and beloved novel completely ignores what Bram Stoker wrote and to further insult fans of the original novel, it incorporates bits and pieces of the 1992 Coppola film,adds in historical figures which are completely irrelevant and rearranges dates to crowbar in the Jack the Ripper murders.
It seems that the authors have little love for Bram's characters. What worked so well in the original novel besides excellent writing was its simplicity: Dracula was a monster.The band of heroes who rallied against him were all pure and good.Supernatural evil vs.good.Fight!
In this poorly written "sequel",Dracula is somehow more of a force for good. Not only that but now vampires turn to ash in the sunlight. And Dracula is some kind of sexual Tyrannosaurus who Mina loves now.And Dracula didnt turn Lucy into a vampire because he's evil. Oh no he did it to save her from Van Helsings botched blood transfusion. What?? And on and on.
This novel on its own makes very little sense. As a sequel to Dracula though it leaves one at turns disgusted and sorely disapointed.

[Troy · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I read the last page and closed the book I had mixed emotions. First, relief that it was over. Second, sadness at the thought that my memory of the wonderful piece of literature that is "Dracula" will always be soiled by this book. Third, anger that Dacre Stoker made money off this book.
This book is a slap in the face to Bram Stoker and literature. The authors jumped on the bandwagon of Vampire mania by publishing amidst the frenzy of vampire novels. It is as if the two of them sat down, watched a History Channel documentary and decided they were the experts on the historical figure of Dracula.
This book was long and redundant. Every other page left someone in grave danger or killed, only to see them appear 10 pages later saved at the last second or STILL NOT dead! There were pages filled with unnecessarily graphic sex scenes, stereotyped gore, and "the last thought the crossed his mind..."s. The real Dracula novel provided sexual tension, fear and conflict with manipulation of mood, scene and character development, while this book almost wants to ask you after each page "are you scared or aroused yet?"
My advice: read Bram Stoker's Dracula and never relate anything about this book to the true story or theme.
Shame on you Dacre Stoker.

[Deb Omnivorous Reader · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this an appallingly bad book and despite being a fast reader, resorting to a lot of skim reading I have so far been unable to make it past page 64 or the end of chapter nine. There are almost limitless cringe-worthy points in these first chapters and while I may pick the book up again one day I am not betting that I will be feeling that masochistic anytime soon.

Regarding the authors; I see Dacre Stoker is a descendent of Bram Stoker and is not himself an author. My guess is that someone paid him to have his name on the cover to boost sales. Ian Holt is supposed to be a Dracula expert according to IMDB but I am not seeing any memorable list of novels. Our authors may have the Stoker DNA on their side but they do not have the talent.

There is a strong effort to mimic the subtle contemplative (or if you must, gothic) style in the original Dracula. This effort fails on all counts, and instead comes across as clumsy and modern-trying-too hard with a significant failure to do homework;

“Mina .. pulled on a matronly floor-length dress” [pg. 61] Hang on – 1912 right? do these two authors not have access to google? Can they not have a look at respectable dress lengths in those days? Puh-lese.

I can put up with the evil vampire baroness going to the theatre dressed as a man (though it is unlikely that a woman dressed that way in that era would have been admitted) because they are trying (badly) to make a point.

However: “...he took a deep breath and hauled himself up onto the lowest branch.” [pg 13] Except that it is a palm tree. Palm trees do not have branches, they have fronds and a grown man would not be able to ‘haul himself up’ onto one. I am guessing our intrepid authors have never holidayed in the tropics and we have already established their limited access to google.

Now getting back to the evil Baroness – the young maiden married off against her will! To a nasty older husband! Causing her to become a lesbian! Warped and evil!

Really? Again?

This is a pretty overworked theme and you need to be a smoking hot wordsmith to use it with any credibility these days, in this book it is just lame and tedious.

[Caitlin O'Sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Written by a Stoker family member and a Dracula researcher/screenwriter . . . and it shows. Between infodumps (I sometimes felt like I was reading a nonfiction combination of a Walking Guide to London, The Real Story of Dracula!, and The Real Story of Jack The Ripper!) and telling-not-showing description (please, please stop telling me about how much Quincy Harker resents Johnathan Harker) I was ready to chuck this book at the wall by about page 80. I kept reading, in hope that it would get better, but it didn't.

If you are a serious Dracula nerd, you may find some enjoyment in the in-jokes sprinkled through the pages, but if you're not a fanboy, look elsewhere for your vampire fix. I'd suggest Sunshine, by Robin McKinley, or Let The Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist if you're looking for nonsparkly vampires, or Grace Hammer, by Sara Stockbridge, if you want turn-of-the-century London without the annoying "look at my research!" attitude.

[Gynger · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm unsure as to what to say about this book. I got it for christmas as was extremely excited to read it, in fact I read it in 2 days (with interruption of course). I suppose I should start of by saying that I have actually read the first Dracula and I love the story on so many levels. With this book I was looking forward to getting away of the horrid things Twilight has done to the vampire myths and going back to people that should have a vested interest in keeping the original ideals. This was not that case.

The Un-dead started with promise, while I didn't know where the female vampire story was going, it did show steward in the way I would expect him 25 years later, still chasing vampires. And, of course, you need a descendent to carry on the fight (Quincy from Mina and Jonathan). I can even justify the idea of making Dracula a good guy in "Wicked" style (not that I approve as Dracula's cool calculating evil is what made him such an intriguing character to begin with, still I'm trying to give it the ben. of doubt), but other than that it is merely a hodge-podge of name dropping, mainstreaming, and plot splitting. It was like the author didn't know which direction he (they) wanted to go so many were taken. I adore the story of Jack the Ripper as well but I can't tell you how upset I was when he was first introduced. And John Barrymore? Really?

I have to agree with everyone that said it just seemed like bad fan fic, that is it completely. Two guys got together and wanted to see how they could make some money on the vampire fad, sadly Stokers name had to be drug into it. Honestly I think that he would be turning in his grave. The entire essence of the original was lost.... all the meanings, the class struggle, the good/evil, the science/religion, overcoming evil with intellect, all the small touches that made Dracula the classic that it is were missing and in their place was name dropping, graphic violence and selling out. I don't understand how anyone who actually read the original liked this one but to each their own I suppose.

Also, a final note. When they ended with the Titanic reference at the end that was it for me, there was no way to save it. I put the book down in an actual state of mourning.

two post scripts.

one please excuse my babbling, it is 5 in the morning and I have not slept.

two- all that said I am still glad I read the book and encourage any true fan of Dracula to do the same merely because I think it is important form your own opinion and also I think that the literature that is inspired from classic literature is just as important when looking at what the classic has down for or said for society as a whole... just a thought.

[D'Ailleurs · Rating 1 out of 5]

Αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι η pulp κουλτούρα είναι πρόσφορο έδαφος για την δημιουργία καλλιτεχνικών απομιμήσεων με νέες περιπέτειες ηρωών που χαίρουν άκρας εκτίμησης αλλά υπάρχει πάντα ένα όριο στο θράσος των υποψηφίων δημιουργών. Ως εκ τούτου πάντα απολάμβανα τις (δευτέρας διαλογής) περαιτέρω ιστορίες αγαπημένων χαρακτήρων αλλά με την προϋπόθεση ότι δεν αλλοιώνουν τα χαρακτηριστικά που αναπτύχθηκαν στο αυθεντικό έργο ή έστω όχι σε μεγάλο βαθμό.

Εδώ λοιπόν τι έχουμε, μια ακόμα "συνέχεια" του "Δράκουλα" του θρυλικού έργου του Μπράμ Στόουκερ και μια ακόμα κακοποίηση του αγαπημένου βαμπίρ και μάλιστα από έναν συγγενή (μακρινό βέβαια) του συγγραφέα. Ο κος Ντάκρε Στόκερ μαζί με κάποιον Ίαν Χόλτ (σεναριογράφου του έργου "Dr. Chopper" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469899/...) αποφασίζου ότι ο Μπράμ δεν είπε καλά την ιστορία και ότι αυτοί πρέπει να μας τα εξηγήσουν: Έτσι λοιπόν (ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝ ΠΟΛΛΑ SPOILER) μαθαίνουμε ότι ο Δράκουλας είναι στην ουσία υπηρέτης του Θεού και ότι το αυθεντικό κακό βαμπίρ είναι η Κόμισσα Μπάθορι η οποία είναι και υπεύθυνη για τους φόνους του Τζάκ του Εντεροβγάλτη και για αυτό πήγε ο Δράκουλας στην Αγγλία για να την σταματήσει και ότι ο Βάν Χέλσινγ δεν ήταν παρά ένας εμμονικός γιατρός που πήρε στον λαιμό του την Λούσι με τις μεταγγίσεις αίματος: δηλαδή ότι η πάλη ανάμεσα στον μεσαιωνικό σκοταδισμό που αντιπροσωπεύει ο Δράκουλας (θρησκευτικός φανατισμός, προλήψεις) και το φώς της επιστήμης του Βάν Χέλσινγκ (χρήση σύγχρονων μεθόδων Ιατρικής) δεν έγινε ποτέ. Αντίθετα έχουμε ένα σούπερνόβα παραλογοτεχνικής υποκουλτούρας που ανακατεύει ΟΛΑ τα κλισέ των ταινιών δράσης/φαντασίας των τελευταίων ετών (λεσβίες βαμπίρ, κατάνες, ιπτάμενες μονομαχίες αν τα θυμάμαι καλά κ.α.) με συχνές αναφορές σε περιστατικά της εποχής (Τιτανικός) για να προσθέσουν αυθεντικότητα μη χέσω δοσμένα με την αντιπαθητική πρόζα της κινηματογραφικής γραφής.

Οκ παραδέχομαι ότι το βιβλίο είναι page turner αλλά δεν παύει να είναι σκουπίδι. Ένα σκουπίδι που δεν σέβεται τίποτα ούτε καν τις ρίζες του. Υπάρχουν δεκάδες καλύτερα pastiches των pulp ηρωών, οπότε ψάχτε κάποιο από αυτά.

[Zephfire · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bram Stoker's Dracula has long been in my all time top 10 favourite books, and I had mixed feelings when I saw this billed as the true sequel. Written by a descendant of Bram's and Ian Holt and based on Bram's own notes, I wondered if it would be a worthy successor, it certainly seemed to have the pedigree. I found it to be very enjoyable, the inclusion of Elizabeth Bathory into the plot fit well, she is a captivating foe. Aligning the story into the Jack the Ripper crimes really added to my enjoyment too as I am a fan of Ripper theories. The story is set 25 years on from the original and we get updated on the rise and falls of the major characters since their last encounter with the Prince. Draclua himself, as the title suggests was not killed at the end of their last encounter as Mina Harker et al thought, and has now returned. This book shows a tangent for Dracula, and he is portrayed in a much more sympathetic and romantic light, which I shan't go into detail on as I wouldn't like to spoil the plot for anyone.
The descriptions of Victorian London are vivid and poetic. I would say it's the perfect read for the coming long winter nights and I was to glad that I picked it up. There are a few slips in the tone, pace and wording which steer it slightly off track, but overall it is very sympathetically written and elegant.

[Бранимир Събев · Rating 5 out of 5]

Затварям новият роман за Дракула изпълнен с чувството на абсолютно удовлетворение. Много са малко книгите в живота на човек, за които може смело да се каже, че нямат никакви недостатъци.

„Дракула: Немъртвият” е точно такава книга.

Какво съдържа романа ли? Ще бъда кратък. Дейкър Стокър, потомък на Брам Стокър (дядото на Дейкър и Брам са били братя) се запознава с Йън Холт (може би най-големият почитател на Дракула в целия свят) и решават да отдадат своеото почитание към прачичото на Дейкър, написвайки продължение на класическия роман. Замисълът на авторите е да възкресят оригиналните герои на Брам такива, каквито са били всъщност, а не изкривените версии на множество книги и филми. И са се справили повече от блестящо.

Положителните черти на книгата са многобройни. Авторите са направили страшно много проучвания по темата, пътешествайки за целта през половината свят, използвали са личните записки на Брам, срещали са се с много хора, свързани по някакъв начин с румънския владетел, за да бъде творбата издържана логически и исторически достоверна. Стилът е въздействащ и завладяващ от първата страница, звучи едновременно класически от XIX в., ала примесен с модернистичен уклон.

Повествованието се лее леко и естествено като река в русло, писано е с много страст и желание, читателя бързо и неусетно бива пренесен в света отпреди цял век. За последното особено силно важи описанието на поствикториански Лондон – градът буквално диша от страниците на романа. Да не забравя да спомена и силното въздействащо присъствие на театъра, станал част от живота на Брам Стокър и намерил своето място в книгата като класически вампирски атрибут.

Непреходните житейски истини, изразени в кратки сентенции, си попадат съвсем на местата – „мъжът се ръководи от разума и логиката, освен когато не става въпрос за сексуалните му желания”, „тайните са като цветя, затрупани от сняг – след време се възправят и грейват с всичките си цветове под светлината”, „въпросите се трупаха в ума й като тухли, които обграждаха с високи зидове мислите й”, „стойността на мъжа се измерва по това как се грижи за семейството си, а не по престъпниците, които е заловил” и много други. Тук е мястото да отбележа почитанията си към добрия превод на Елена Кодинова – личи си, че са правени много справки, за да се получи на български книгата наистина добра.

„Дракула: Немъртвият” е роман, достойно продължение на творбата на Брам Стокър, който силно се надявам да има качествена филмова интерпретация. Във времена, когато вампирите са ходещи на училище тийнейджъри, разкъсвани от детински любовни драми, тази книга се явява като своеобразно напомняне за това, какви са вампирите всъщност. Мрачни, горди, могъщи същества от по-висша раса, преминаващи тихо през вековете, обречени на самота аристократи. А когато се случи да обичат или да мразят, са способни да изпепелят целия свят в пожара на своите чувства…

[Susan Garrett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Downloaded this from Kindle and thank the Lorhd I didn't pay hardcover price for it. What a frustrating book! The name-checking of entertainment types who have had something to do with Dracula - cheap, boring and distracting. Another apologist version of Dracula (misunderstood Wallachian Christian hero) - yaaaawn.

The action was frenetic - there are a few good 'race to get somewhere scenes' - but the characters' inner monologues were laughably bad. Quincey Morris (son of Jonathan and Mina Harker) is an arrogant, self-obsessed fool. There are failable characters and then there are idiots - this one is an idiot. In fact, none of the characters are even vaguely recognizable from Stoker's novel.

And that's the sad bit, really, because this was an attempt to regain control over the character and bring it back into the family. There's lots of 'Look, I'm sticking in bits of important historic things - I did RESEARCH! See! See!' that just wears on you after a bit. 90% of the main characters and all of the supporting charaters are either unlikeable, uninteresting, or dunderheads that you hope come to a horrible end. And they do. So maybe it was the author's way of making certain you didn't feel badly about their hideous demise? If so, it's damned awkward and annoying. Come to think of it, I've not read a book in which entrails feature so prominently.

Bathory is the big bad (no spoiler) and is possibly the only well-drawn and interesting character, but when push comes to shove she twirls her mustache (trust me, she's probably had one) and is prepared to tie the tempting bit of bait to the railroad tracks in the best Snidely Whiplash impersonation, evah! We are talking melodrama that is so far over the top, it's down the other side.

The kicker is that the characters' motives and the plot never really make sense. I kept thinking (longingly) of one of the better apologist Dracula novels (The Dracula Tapes, by Saberhagen) and this book doesn't come close to that class.

If you want to read a decent Dracula pastiche, pick up The Historian. It's a much better read, you get a serious bang for your buck, it won't melt your brain, and it's large enough to use to kill vermin.

[Blandine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dear Dacre Stoker,

Apparently, your sequel to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Dracula The Un-Dead, was a tribute to your great grand-uncle. Please, do not be offended by what is to follow.

First of all, I would love to know how this sequel became the “official” Dracula sequel? Did Bram Stoker himself give his approval? Seeing that he is buried six feet underground, I suspect the only fact that makes this book “official” is your family name. That is, to me, a very negligible argument since from now on, anyone named Stoker could come up with a piece of work about vampires and call it an official sequel. Oh well.

Secondly, I was wondering if you had read the Twilight series? I don’t want to sound all indie stuck-up, but sometimes mainstream really isn’t good. Seriously. You must be wondering why I’m asking you this very strange question. Well, it is quite easy: since when has Dracula become some emo vampire with remorse? ‘I’m not a villain, I only meant to save you Mina’ This is not directly quoted from your book, but it pretty much sums up Dracula’s speeches – or shall I say Basarab’s? (yes, I knew Basarab was Dracula right from the start, and I promise you, I’m not even all that clever.) The whole point in Dracula was that he was cold-hearted and a manipulator. He was not Edward Cullen. And his personality allowed Stoker to question faith, religion, evil, technology… He was not meant to be some romantic hero that melt young girls’ hearts. As a result of all of this, I didn’t shiver once. I didn’t peer over my book hoping Dracula wasn’t in a dark corner of the room, ready to drain me until the last drop of blood.

Their mental connection complete, he continued, “I was made in God’s image, but I am of a higher order. Does not the wolf feed on sheep? As all great hunters, I am alone. There is no sound sadder than the cry of the wolf, alone in the night, reviled by man, hunted to the point of near-extinction.”

His lips came close to her ear so that she could feel his icy breath. She longed to feel a kiss from his lips. At the selfsame time, she wanted to tear herself away and run.

“Please understand, Mina, without you I am lost,” Dracula whispered. “My sole crime is that I am unschooled in the ways of this modern age. Can any man who loves you as much as I do by truly evil?” [page 357:]

This leads me to my third point. Horror, gothic is not gore. If I want gory details, I will just spend 10 euros to see some Saw film at the cinema. Bram Stoker’s novel made me anxious, yours made me wince. All these disgusting descriptions about Countess Bathory’s losing her eye or Dracula’s having his fingers cut off by a sword were really unnecessary. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but if that’s what the “modern” readership wants to read, fine. I’ll stick to the classics then.

Fourthly - and it’s a quick point – why name the book Dracula The Un-Dead if the book really is about Countess Bathory, relative of Dracula? I’m not naive, I know ‘Dracula’ will probably sell more, but still, it is misleading.

My next criticism is that it feels as though you had many ideas, and were not quite sure which one to follow so you decided to embrace them all. Too many characters, including some who just pop up for several lines before disappearing to never be mentioned again. The Jack the Ripper plot was good but overall, the story was too disorganised and at times I was at loss as to where you wanted to go.

Finally, the name dropping made me smile at first: Oscar Wilde is one of my favourite authors, and the story was more rooted in the early 20th century’s culture. But I was really annoyed with your including Bram Stoker in the novel. Again, it’s a selling factor but, seriously, what the heck?! It almost made me feel ill-at-ease, and it takes awkward things like the Mamma Mia! film to give me second-hand embarrassment. I will not even comment on the Titanic ending for Quincey. This is so 1912.

Of course, I was annoyed with smaller details, such as changes made from the original novel to fit your own story. If you’re going to write a sequel – let alone an official sequel – the least you could do is think of a plot that doesn’t need the rewriting of the original story. After all, the main piece of work is that of Bram Stoker, and it seems almost irreverent to change his version to match your own.

I shall not bother you any longer, and thank you for reading me.

Yours sincerely,

A disappointed reader who’s glad they didn’t spend 20 euros on the hardback edition of your book.