Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

Just reminding everyone that, because The Historian is such a long book, August is our reading month and we will discuss it in September. "See you" next month!

Thanks, Lenore - I can't wait for the discussion to start - I've already started to listen to the book. Don't worry, my lips are sealed!

Ah, no pressure, just as it should be in summer. I started listening also, and I'm caught! I admire narrators who can do all the characters, as Jim Dale did with the H.P. books, but there's extra fun with a larger cast. <3

I’m about half-way through the borrowed e-book but will have to switch to the print version in a day or so when the e-book expires. It certainly is wordy, but I like the characters and story enough to keep slogging through.

OK! It's September, and time to talk about the third entry in our vampire series, The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova.

I first read both Dracula and The Historian about 10 years ago, and re-read them again this year. Both times, the books made an impression on me. Indisputably, Dracula is a masterpiece of the Gothic horror tale. It really gives one the shivers. But to me, The Historian is far creepier.

Dracula takes place in Victorian England, among wealthy (or, at least, middle class) people of the era, with manners and mores somewhat removed from the present day. And in the end (Les Klinger to the contrary notwithstanding – see his The New Annotated Dracula), the danger is vanquished. The Historian, by contrast, takes place in the mid- to late-20th century, in our time. Much of it unfolds in a university setting, the very sort of institution in which many of us were for some of that period. For me, the scenes that take place in the university library bring me instant mental pictures of the University of Rochester’s Rush Rhees Library -- both the main reading room and the stacks. I, and probably many of you, have been to several of the places in Europe that the story takes the characters. (And although I have not been to Rumania, my father grew up there.) And in the end, whether the threat has been eliminated is far more ambiguous. Even recognizing that this is fiction, the story leaves one uneasy.

The form of the book is in some ways modeled on Dracula. Following “A Note to the Reader,” the narrator quotes the epigraph the begins Dracula, stating that all of the records that compose the book are contemporaneous records of those who were there. Although the “Note to the Reader” admits that these are recollections of what was told her, and that she has in a few places inserted her own “informed speculation,” the implication is that all of this is based on the contemporaneous experience of the various sub-narrators (her father, her father’s mentor) who told her what happened before her birth.

If you have already finished the book – we established the month of August as the reading period – you may want to look at the Wikipedia article about the book for a discussion of some of the themes, and you might also want to look at this short blog post: https://tinyurl.com/4wreb6ry

Because we did have a month-long reading period, I’m thinking we don’t need the 10-day ban on spoilers. But if you are not at the end yet, there is plenty of great stuff to talk about before the climax.

The narrator uses the old Roman names for some European cities (Emona for Ljubljana and Ragusa for Dubrovnik). She also disguises the real name of the monastery to which they all go in the end. She says she does this to discourage "the sort of tourist who follows doom around with a guidebook." But is this the only reason, or is there another?

It begins to appear that Dracula knows who has touched the books, where they are, and who has seen them? How does he know this? Yes, he knows where his minions have left the books, but how does he know what happens next?

Another question that occurs to me in this context: How does he choose who gets the books? The world is filled with medievalists. (My own niece is a very prominent medievalist, and her husband is one as well -- although she is more concerned with literature and he with history. Neither has yet received a dragon book, as far as I know.)

About the names, perhaps to discourage would-be followers of Dracula? What do you think, Lenore?
About the books, why was Rossi chosen to get the book? The other recipients who are narrators get theirs because of a connection to him.

About the names, discouraging would-be followers is certainly one possibility. Another, I thought, might be the narrator's discovery, in Venice, and on her journey with Barley, that either Dracula or one of his minions has been following her and her father. She fears, I think, that some of her readers might take up the quest, and Dracula would be following them.

I don't think it's correct that everyone who got the book has a connection with Rossi. Professor Bora, the Turkish professor, never met Rossi, and got the book before he learned of Rossi's existence. The same is true of Stoichev, the Bulgarian scholar. (I can't remember if Hugh James, the Oxford professor, had met Rossi before receiving his dragon book, but I think not.)

In Rossi's conversation on the subject, as Rossi recounts it to Paul and Helen, Dracula said he has been leaving them for scholars. He wants to lure someone to his library, to be his archivist, and Rossi is eventually chosen because he returned to his Dracula research after being frightened off, which to Dracula means that Rossi really wants to find him.

So why Rossi was chosen is really part of my question. How does Dracula choose which scholars should receive books?

After I wrote the above, I found the place in the book (ch. 40) in which we meet Hugh James. He received his book quite awhile before Paul, and he never met Rossi. So, rather than saying that the other recipients all had a connection to Rossi, I think we should say that all the recipients were eventually drawn to Rossi in researching their own books.

I said the other recipients who are narrators had a connection to Rossi. I admit I didn't see how the others were chosen. If Dracula needed an archivist why not seek out archivists. Not all historians have the skill to be an archivist. Aren't archivists often librarians? Surely there are scholars who are historians/librarians/archivists who would have been more ideal candidates? I very much liked the book's representation of the mind of an historian including the reaching through time to almost touch the hand of someone who once held an old document. And in the context of this group I couldn't help but think of Mary Russell's love of libraries. Maybe the book should have been called the archivist, but I think it would have had a different tone.

Made it through the book- I found that I was more interested in the relationship with Helen than the mystery of finding Dracula. Always a fun jaunt when adventurous librarians and historians go galavanting about Europe in search of danger and information!

I owned a hardback copy of The Historian when it first came out and know I didn’t finish it that time, so this time I got the Audible copy and enjoyed it much more. I’m not familiar with Eastern Europe so I wasn’t concerned with the place names. There were 2 things that did stick out for me - first, I counted at least 5 stories within the story as we heard the first person account of another character and second, who the title actually referred to.

Cathy wrote: "I said the other recipients who are narrators had a connection to Rossi. I admit I didn't see how the others were chosen. If Dracula needed an archivist why not seek out archivists. Not all histori..."

I have to agree that Dracula's approach is, to say the least, idiosyncratic. In fact, not everyone who got a dragon book was even a historian -- Professor Bora is a Shakespeare expert, although perhaps Dracula or his minions somehow knew of his connection to the Crescent Guard. To me. at least, Dracula's reasoning is one of the unsolved mysteries of book.

Speaking of Professor Bora, whom I found to be a delightful character, doesn't it seem like too much of a coincidence that he shows up in the restaurant of their hotel to eat dinner when they do? I have my own theory about how this happened, but I'd like to hear the views of others.

Cathy wrote: "...And in the context of this group I couldn't help but think of Mary Russell's love of libraries...."

I really think that the love of libraries is one of the themes of this book. Every library is lovingly described, and Paul and his daughter seem to love exploring every library.

I found the book so congenial because I love history and I love libraries. I thought all the narrators were kindred spirits.
But Lenore what is your theory about Professor Bora. I have no view as to how he came to show up other than this is a story and his appearance advances the plot.

Cathy wrote: "I found the book so congenial because I love history and I love libraries. I thought all the narrators were kindred spirits.
But Lenore what is your theory about Professor Bora. I have no view as ..."

I thought I posted a reply to this earlier today, but I must have done something wrong because it does not appear. Ah, technology!

I have to abandon my theory, because on checking the book to make sure I was stating it correctly, I discovered that I am totally wrong. (Fellow VBC members who have argued with me about other things will not be surprised.)

I misremembered when Helen and Paul met Selim Aksoy, the young bookseller, and their conversation at that time. I thought they met him before Bora's appearance in the restaurant rather than after, and that they had discussed the whereabouts of Mehmed's archive, which they did not. As we know that Bora and Aksoy are both members of the Crescent Guard, I thought that Aksoy had advised Bora of their interest, and Bora then inserted himself into their search,

But they actually met Bora first, and met Aksoi the next day, and only discussed the Shakespeare book Aksoi showed them, nothing else. So we have to accept Bora's explanation that the meeting was pure happenstance. And what a fortunate piece of luck!

Here's another question about Dracula and his book distribution system. Everyone who sees a book (or traces Dracula's history) and then follows up on it has an immediately distressing experience, often deadly to someone to whom they are close: Rossi's friend Hedges is murdered, the cat that visits Paul every evening is killed, James's fiancée is irreparably damaged in an auto accident, the elderly librarian who helped the narrator is killed, Stoichev finds his room sacked and his own blood and name in the book. How is that supposed to get him an archivist? I have come to think that Dracula himself is conflicted -- he wants to be found and yet he doesn't want to be found.

I thought Dracula wanted the people who received books to be aware that the decision to follow should not be taken lightly, that danger was involved. By creating those perimeters he was able to cull the field to the most intellectually driven

Jennifer wrote: "I thought Dracula wanted the people who received books to be aware that the decision to follow should not be taken lightly, that danger was involved. By creating those perimeters he was able to cul..."

I think that's a great insight!

Lenore wrote: "Cathy wrote: "...And in the context of this group I couldn't help but think of Mary Russell's love of libraries...."

I really think that the love of libraries is one of the themes of this book. Ev..."

Within the theme of libraries and their both peaceful quiet and exciting potential of a universe of books, I'd like to suggest another sub-plot/theme. Have you ever felt somewhat intimidated by the librarian? They expect supreme hush and respect for their world and will supply a stern look over half moon glasses and a "hush!" themselves when needed. Imagine if the librarian was one of the "undead" and chased you all over Europe with the threat of a rabid attack to the throat in a quick second...

Mark wrote: "...Imagine if the librarian was one of the "undead" and chased you all over Europe with the threat of a rabid attack to the throat in a quick second..."

Yikes! I might never enter a library again! But in the context of this story, as much as I want to see the end of this particular librarian, I have to feel that he is something of an unwitting tool, having been turned by Dracula. I can see why he is enraged -- he's a librarian, why wouldn't Dracula have chosen him instead of Rossi to oversee the great library?

But I think you are on to something. Knowledge is a great and powerful thing, but also presents dangers. Both personal -- in that one can become obsessed -- and greater, in that it can lead one to dangerous situations.

Paul became a successful academic after he and Helen married. But he left academia to found an organization focused on peace and diplomacy. Do you think that his decision to do that was precipitated by the events of the story?

I assumed there was a connection but it seemed attenuated. I don’t think it was explained perhaps because the daughter thought the connection was obvious.

I thought Paul’s foundation was a reaction to what he and Helen had learned and seen. And also because of losing her. And that the loss was related back to what they’d learned and seen

My own thought was that Paul's career change was directly related to what I see as one of the main themes of the book: the persistence of evil over time. A striking illustration of this is the scene that Rossi and Georgescu witness, the fascist Iron Guard rally, with Dracula watching happily from the shadows. Later, when Paul and Helen realize that the secret police have an interest in Dracula the speculate about how much worse things could have been if the great mass murderers of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, had been immortal. Dracula himself was a warlord, and Hitler and Stalin certainly caused wars. And Dracula is the personification of evil existing through time. So I think Paul saw his peace and diplomacy foundation as a way to battle the persistence of evil.

Loved that comment Lenore

So much evil …

Somewhat removed from the themes of this book, but still of interest to me: What did you think about Helen's removal of the bejeweled life of Saint George and their subsequent sale of the book? Lately I've been reading a lot about countries trying to retrieve their treasures from museums, items taken by conquerors or explorers. It seems to me that the book may be the property of the people of Bulgaria. Paul says as much. Admittedly, the then-Communist government of Bulgaria did not care a whit about Saint George himself, but would surely have loved to display the book in a museum.

Of course, a potential argument is that we know it is not of Bulgarian origin. But that is not much help. Helen describes it as Byzantine -- which, I suppose, would make it the property of Turkey, something they did not tell Turgut Bora.

Paul says that when it is sold they will use the money for something worthwhile, and of course it eventually enables him to create his foundation (and, we learn, helps fund Helen's search for Dracula). But does that justify their keeping the money for themselves?

Lenore wrote: "Somewhat removed from the themes of this book, but still of interest to me: What did you think about Helen's removal of the bejeweled life of Saint George and their subsequent sale of the book? Lat..."

An interesting point, Lenore. That did not occur to me. The Communists, being atheist, might have just locked the book away or even dismantled it for the value of the jewels. The Turkish government might have displayed the book in a museum, depending on its view on Christianity at the time.

One thing I thought about was Bora’s group’s support of the sultan who was so cruel to non-Muslims and the support of the church in Bulgaria of Vlad. Rossi, Paul, Helen, and the others who were drawn into the search for Dracula’s resting place were caught between but also got assistance from two groups whose purpose were in opposition.

Dayna wrote: "...One thing I thought about was Bora’s group’s support of the sultan who was so cruel to non-Muslims and the support of the church in Bulgaria of Vlad. Rossi, Paul, Helen, and the others who were drawn into the search for Dracula’s resting place were caught between but also got assistance from two groups whose purpose were in opposition. "

This is a really interesting point. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Sultan were at cross-purposes to a major extent, but they both, for very different reasons, want to aid in the search for and destruction of Dracula.

In fairness, the Sultan's cruelty only extended to what he permitted his army in the conquest. He continued to allow Christian churches to function in Constantinople. By contrast, Dracula was consistently and constantly cruel to everyone, even his own people. And though some of the monks supported Dracula because of his fight against the Turks, we see by Dracula's discussion with the abbot of Snagov at the end of the Epilogue that the abbot was concerned about Dracula's soul and considered the idea of attempting to attain eternal life except through heaven to be a frightening heresy. So although the Turks wanted Dracula dead in the immediate future, the Church wanted him to stay dead once he died.

We have a week left, so it's time to move to the important questions. Here's one of mine: What did you think about Helen's decision to leave her family to pursue Dracula, and to give them no hint of where she was?

Lenore wrote: "We have a week left, so it's time to move to the important questions. Here's one of mine: What did you think about Helen's decision to leave her family to pursue Dracula, and to give them no hint o..."

Great question! Sometimes a parent has to abandon a child for the child’s best interest. I think Helen was concerned that she would fall victim to Dracula or at least under his thrall and lead him back to Paul and their daughter. So she chose instead to search for and destroy him.

From a personal perspective, I can understand this. I am adopted and only recently learned about the circumstances of my birth. I had a great childhood with loving adoptive parents who provided all of my needs. I’m not sure that I would have been so well cared for by my birth mother, especially after learning what happened to my half-siblings. I want to believe my birth mother had my best interests at heart when she gave me up. I think the same of Helen leaving her husband and child.

Dayna wrote: "Lenore wrote: "We have a week left, so it's time to move to the important questions. Here's one of mine: What did you think about Helen's decision to leave her family to pursue Dracula, and to give..."

Thank you for a most valuable insight. <3

I apologize for being absent so long -- between Jewish holidays, family stuff, work, and a knee injury -- not everything that should be done was done.

Why does our narrator receive a dragon book at the end? And from whom? We know that Dracula considered her the most persistent of his "historian" candidates and wanted her, but we also know that Helen shot him in the heart with a silver bullet and they all saw him literally turn to dust on the crypt floor. Has he somehow reconstituted himself?

Was it one of his minions -- the librarian, or some other soul he has turned? If so, why? Does he or she hope to reconstitute Dracula's library? Or do they just want to give her the willies as revenge for her part in defeating their master? (Although, really, she was just the last survivor present at his destruction, unless Barley also still lives, and neither of them really were the ones who did in Dracula.)

I think all those suggestions are possible although I lean more toward the followers than the reconstituted Dracula. I mainly thought it was a good way to end the story.

Cathy wrote: "I think all those suggestions are possible although I lean more toward the followers than the reconstituted Dracula. I mainly thought it was a good way to end the story."

I'm with you on that. But why? What do they hope to accomplish?

Or is this just evidence that evil persists throughout time, even in the absence of Dracula?

Tomorrow is the last official day for this book, but I will continue to monitor the list in case anyone has anything further they want to say or questions they wish to pose.

Here's my (tentative) last question: Did you find this book really creepy, as I did? How do you think it compares to the original Dracula story by Stoker?

Thank you to all of you who participated, and to those of you who, as I sometimes do, followed the discussion without posting. I hope you enjoyed the book.

Thank you for leading the discussion. I enjoyed the book very much.

I confess I abandoned the book, but I enjoyed reading the discussion. Thanks for insights!
Addition: an article in TIME mentioned Vladimir Putin. That name explains so much . . .

For those still interested in Eastern European vampires, check this out: https://tinyurl.com/ajrpwh7m