What do you think?
Rate this book
I, Vampire #2
The Vampire Papers
In the spine-tingling, pulse-pounding tradition of "Interview With The Vampire," a chilling look into the secret world of the Vampiri, which exists around us always -- invisible, unsuspected . . . until we feel the prick of teeth at our neck in a dream and wake up to find . . . an end to all dreaming and a beginning to a unliving nightmare!
From the Paperback edition.
From the Paperback edition.
449 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 2, 1994
11 people are currently reading
222 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
March 25, 2014
I first read this in high school mistakenly having purchased it thinking it was connected (or at least similar) to Interview with the Vampire, which I'd recently seen in the theater. Of course, The Vampire Papers is a very different vampire story in its own unique world. I decided to give it a reread after finishing my last book because of... reasons (reasons that contain spoilers, so I won't delve into them).
I remember enjoying this book the first time around, and it is still an entertaining read, even if the concepts are a little hard to accept. Using real, historical figures that he combines with his fictional, Romkey creates a collection of luminaries that are actually a secret cabal of vampires who run the world as the Illuminati and a brutal killer they are trying to stop. The case is given to a newer vampire in the Illuminati, David Parker, a musician who is being tutored by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (also a vampire) in both music and Iluminati practices.
The killer cuts a bloody swath through New York City before making his way to Jerusalem, Mississippi, where he has some unfinished business from his previous mortal life. Parker is sent after the killer and winds up over his head. This is primarily because David Parker is a bit of a weak character, in almost every sense. There is also much more going on than "Wolf" (name Mozart uses publicly) and Parker could even begin to guess.
The whole thing builds through violence, sex, history, and a curious cast of characters that populate most tales surrounding the South until it eventually explodes in the killer's final act, an exceptionally theatrical performance to gain his final revenge.
Romkey takes a lot of liberty with his historical references, but since many of these characters are revealed to have become vampires (and one is just a brutal, racist killer who briefly went to California and used a very famous nom de guerre for a series of unsolved murders). It's interesting, but at points seems a bit much, especially the wealth of superpowers he gives his "vampiri" that at times stretch even the most elastic suspension of disbelief. Still, overall entertaining and an enjoyable read.
I remember enjoying this book the first time around, and it is still an entertaining read, even if the concepts are a little hard to accept. Using real, historical figures that he combines with his fictional, Romkey creates a collection of luminaries that are actually a secret cabal of vampires who run the world as the Illuminati and a brutal killer they are trying to stop. The case is given to a newer vampire in the Illuminati, David Parker, a musician who is being tutored by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (also a vampire) in both music and Iluminati practices.
The killer cuts a bloody swath through New York City before making his way to Jerusalem, Mississippi, where he has some unfinished business from his previous mortal life. Parker is sent after the killer and winds up over his head. This is primarily because David Parker is a bit of a weak character, in almost every sense. There is also much more going on than "Wolf" (name Mozart uses publicly) and Parker could even begin to guess.
The whole thing builds through violence, sex, history, and a curious cast of characters that populate most tales surrounding the South until it eventually explodes in the killer's final act, an exceptionally theatrical performance to gain his final revenge.
Romkey takes a lot of liberty with his historical references, but since many of these characters are revealed to have become vampires (and one is just a brutal, racist killer who briefly went to California and used a very famous nom de guerre for a series of unsolved murders). It's interesting, but at points seems a bit much, especially the wealth of superpowers he gives his "vampiri" that at times stretch even the most elastic suspension of disbelief. Still, overall entertaining and an enjoyable read.
April 20, 2022
This book is a little too in love with the southern narrative of the Civil War; granted, it takes place in the south, but the northern and European longing for the romance of the old south is more jarring now than it was when I read it as a teenager. The narrative is disjointed, written in an epistle format to start, similar to the far superior “I, Vampire,” but then breaks into a third person narrative to complete the story.
The heel-turn of the protagonist also feels less reasonable on second reading (or perhaps this is the third time). What accounts for the problems David is going through in this? Why is he unable to control his anger? Why is he so ready to turn against his idols from the first novel? The answers are vaguely hinted at, but seem to ultimately turn on “because the character had to be at this spot, with this person at the end of the book.” The first book has its issues (it’s such an eighties’ book you cannot escape it), but this one leaves a really bad taste in the mouth.
The heel-turn of the protagonist also feels less reasonable on second reading (or perhaps this is the third time). What accounts for the problems David is going through in this? Why is he unable to control his anger? Why is he so ready to turn against his idols from the first novel? The answers are vaguely hinted at, but seem to ultimately turn on “because the character had to be at this spot, with this person at the end of the book.” The first book has its issues (it’s such an eighties’ book you cannot escape it), but this one leaves a really bad taste in the mouth.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 9, 2008
My first Romkey book was I, Vampire, and I really liked it.
I'm happy to report that this book is just as good and enjoyable as the first one. David Parker returns as does his mentor Mozart, who assigns David the task of hunting down and killing a renegade murdering vampire.
The antagonist this time is not Jack the Ripper but John Wilkes Booth. Like in the first book, David feels overwhelmed by Booth's power and wonders why Mozart asked him to do this. To add to the mix, Nicoletta Vittorini di Medusa, an ancient and most powerful of vampires, shows up to aid Booth - or is it to help David?
As a history buff, I enjoy Romkey's use of historical characters and the vampire organizations he's created. It's a refreshingly original approach, though I maintain it's a bit too close to Anne Rice at times, like when David quotes Keats and writes compositions (a blend of Louis and Lestat).
But that's a minor point and just barely worth mentioning. Highly recommended.
I'm happy to report that this book is just as good and enjoyable as the first one. David Parker returns as does his mentor Mozart, who assigns David the task of hunting down and killing a renegade murdering vampire.
The antagonist this time is not Jack the Ripper but John Wilkes Booth. Like in the first book, David feels overwhelmed by Booth's power and wonders why Mozart asked him to do this. To add to the mix, Nicoletta Vittorini di Medusa, an ancient and most powerful of vampires, shows up to aid Booth - or is it to help David?
As a history buff, I enjoy Romkey's use of historical characters and the vampire organizations he's created. It's a refreshingly original approach, though I maintain it's a bit too close to Anne Rice at times, like when David quotes Keats and writes compositions (a blend of Louis and Lestat).
But that's a minor point and just barely worth mentioning. Highly recommended.
July 24, 2011
Not as good as his first novel. Romkey is just a bit too proud of how clever he is and what a good writer he is. If his cleverness and skill matched his self-estimate, this novel would have been better. His characters tend to lack depth or complexity.
This also kind of reminded me of the Dirk Pitt novels in a`way. There is some entertainment value in this novel, especially the mystery of the bad guy's true identity, but I cannot recommend this book as an introduction to Romkey's vampire novels. Read I, Vampire or London Vampire Panic first. Then make up your own mind if you want to read more of his work.
This also kind of reminded me of the Dirk Pitt novels in a`way. There is some entertainment value in this novel, especially the mystery of the bad guy's true identity, but I cannot recommend this book as an introduction to Romkey's vampire novels. Read I, Vampire or London Vampire Panic first. Then make up your own mind if you want to read more of his work.
May 10, 2024
Why did this book make me hate David Parker. Such a weak spirited dick. But that just shows how well written the book and characters are. Evoking real hatred for fictional humans
February 1, 2024
The Vampire Papers was a very thoroughly enjoyable read, and would have given it five stars but for some very annoying problems.
The writing itself was gorgeous, mature and descriptive. The author is not afraid to use big words, nor is he afraid of graphic depictions of sex and violence, which he does very well. The first half of the novel consisted of journal entries, letters, reports, etc... to tell the story and was very cleverly done. The second half was written in traditional third person omniscient viewpoint, which was also very well done. It was well paced, thrilling and actually rather scary at points.
Characterizations were quite good. The good characters were all very likable, although I would have liked the protagonist, David, to be more developed. The villain was spectacular, and most certainly the star of the novel. He wasn't in the least bit a sympathetic villain, and in fact he was utterly despicable. His evil was fascinating and repulsive and completely engrossing to read, and when his fate was delivered there was no sadness or regret like there would have been with a more likable villain. I do wish the author had spent more time developing the character of Nicoletta, who was introduced in a very clever way and could have been utilized better.
All the glowing praise aside, this novel wasn't by any means perfect. In fact, it was flawed in such an aggravating way, it almost earned only three stars.
The vampire world in this novel written as a diametrically opposed duality- there are good vampires, led by the Illuminati and evil vampires that are violent, self serving sadists which the vampires of the Illuminati oppose and destroy. There are no middle of the way, neutral vampires who just are what they are.
My problem is not with the evil vampires but with the overwhelming benevolence of the good vampires. The Illuminati vampires rule the human world from the shadows and attempt to keep it safe, never taking human life as if humans are some sort of sacred beings to be served by those who are more powerful. This wouldn't be that problematic if the good guys weren't vampires, because David and his kind are not in the least bit vampire-like and I often forgot they were supposed to be vampires until reminded of what they were, which happened regularly in the narrative. If I have to be reminded if what a character is, there is a problem with the character.
If the Illuminati had consisted of benevolent wizards who had discovered the secrets of immortality or were immortal due to something like Fae blood, the opposition between the two groups would have been more comfortable for me. David and his peers would have made more sense as characters, and the entire story would have been more satisfying.
There was really no point to the good guys having been vampires to begin with, and this was made worse as they were written to exhibit my most despised pet peeve of the vampire genre- under eating. Vampires don't need to eat very often, only about once per month and are not required to kill the life of the host they feed from. This is extremely unrealistic. How could they possibly get enough caloric intake and nutrients just to stay animated much less to use their amazing vampiric abilities? If good guys don't drink blood, the author, in my opinion, really ought to have made his protagonists some other kind of immortals.
With extreme benevolence and selflessness often comes another problem: naivete. And sadly, these good vampires are sometimes naive to a fault. They were tricked several times by the villains in such ways I became so aggravated I had to put the book down and come back to it later. I was reminded of Dark Helmet's line in Spaceballs, "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." Thankfully, this is not how it ended.
Still, the ending was quite satisfying, despite the problems I mentioned. The good qualities of the novel far outweighed the bad, so The Vampire Papers still earns four stars, and I would definitely recommend it to fans of the vampire horror genre.
The writing itself was gorgeous, mature and descriptive. The author is not afraid to use big words, nor is he afraid of graphic depictions of sex and violence, which he does very well. The first half of the novel consisted of journal entries, letters, reports, etc... to tell the story and was very cleverly done. The second half was written in traditional third person omniscient viewpoint, which was also very well done. It was well paced, thrilling and actually rather scary at points.
Characterizations were quite good. The good characters were all very likable, although I would have liked the protagonist, David, to be more developed. The villain was spectacular, and most certainly the star of the novel. He wasn't in the least bit a sympathetic villain, and in fact he was utterly despicable. His evil was fascinating and repulsive and completely engrossing to read, and when his fate was delivered there was no sadness or regret like there would have been with a more likable villain. I do wish the author had spent more time developing the character of Nicoletta, who was introduced in a very clever way and could have been utilized better.
All the glowing praise aside, this novel wasn't by any means perfect. In fact, it was flawed in such an aggravating way, it almost earned only three stars.
The vampire world in this novel written as a diametrically opposed duality- there are good vampires, led by the Illuminati and evil vampires that are violent, self serving sadists which the vampires of the Illuminati oppose and destroy. There are no middle of the way, neutral vampires who just are what they are.
My problem is not with the evil vampires but with the overwhelming benevolence of the good vampires. The Illuminati vampires rule the human world from the shadows and attempt to keep it safe, never taking human life as if humans are some sort of sacred beings to be served by those who are more powerful. This wouldn't be that problematic if the good guys weren't vampires, because David and his kind are not in the least bit vampire-like and I often forgot they were supposed to be vampires until reminded of what they were, which happened regularly in the narrative. If I have to be reminded if what a character is, there is a problem with the character.
If the Illuminati had consisted of benevolent wizards who had discovered the secrets of immortality or were immortal due to something like Fae blood, the opposition between the two groups would have been more comfortable for me. David and his peers would have made more sense as characters, and the entire story would have been more satisfying.
There was really no point to the good guys having been vampires to begin with, and this was made worse as they were written to exhibit my most despised pet peeve of the vampire genre- under eating. Vampires don't need to eat very often, only about once per month and are not required to kill the life of the host they feed from. This is extremely unrealistic. How could they possibly get enough caloric intake and nutrients just to stay animated much less to use their amazing vampiric abilities? If good guys don't drink blood, the author, in my opinion, really ought to have made his protagonists some other kind of immortals.
With extreme benevolence and selflessness often comes another problem: naivete. And sadly, these good vampires are sometimes naive to a fault. They were tricked several times by the villains in such ways I became so aggravated I had to put the book down and come back to it later. I was reminded of Dark Helmet's line in Spaceballs, "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." Thankfully, this is not how it ended.
Still, the ending was quite satisfying, despite the problems I mentioned. The good qualities of the novel far outweighed the bad, so The Vampire Papers still earns four stars, and I would definitely recommend it to fans of the vampire horror genre.
March 12, 2021
Solid book, maybe could do without every famous person having become a vampire, but still , good read
May 2, 2023
This one started out pretty slow for me but I stuck with it!
July 5, 2011
The title tells you exactly what this book is.
It's a collection of essays. There were some "entries" from the protagonist and antagonist. They were so broken and far apart that it frustrated me. Those were the good parts.
The "papers" parts were simple, redundant and bland. I didn't finish this.
It's a collection of essays. There were some "entries" from the protagonist and antagonist. They were so broken and far apart that it frustrated me. Those were the good parts.
The "papers" parts were simple, redundant and bland. I didn't finish this.
May 1, 2007
Proof positive that Romkey really is completely nuts.
May 13, 2008
A very different literary style than his earlier novel 'I, Vampire', which made it difficult for me to get into at first. Overall it has a darker and more depraved feeling.
June 20, 2008
ditto on this book too.
Read
December 19, 2008Req. from PBS 12/20/08
July 28, 2011
I liked the first one better...but, still entertaining.
February 22, 2019
At this time in my life, I couldn't get enough of Vampire fiction, this series is a little out there, but interesting.
September 22, 2012
I loved how the writer wrote this sory I have never seen a book written like it good read.
June 17, 2015
I love vampire books this one just had too much going on. I just didn't like it
Read
November 4, 2009Vampire Papers by Michael Romkey (1994)
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews