Scan barcode
rachelblair's review against another edition
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body horror, Death, Gore, Blood, Confinement, Death of parent, and Murder
caughtbetweenpages's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
I absolutely loved this story. It was sold to me as “polyamorous Dracula’s wives join together to overthrow him”, and honestly? I wish I hadn’t heard that. Not because I felt it spoiled things, but because I think it cheapens the impact of the story.
Constanza’s (I regret calling her by that name, because it was given to her by Dracula/her abuser) (who is never directly named and thus afforded power by way of adding to his mystery) journey of self discovery after her identity is stripped from her is empowering, and her reclamation of her religious/ethical convictions, sexuality, and understanding of her intelligence and power was exactly the story I needed when I read this book. The relationships between her, Aleksei, and Magdalena, as well as the hints to the original story of Dracula, are just icing on the cake. I absolutely devoured it.
We follow the point of view of Dracula's first wife, a young woman named Constanza. I regret calling her by that name, because she has forgotten her real name and Constanza is the name that Dracula gave her when he sired her after a incredibly traumatic event happened to her and her family. And she comes back to life as a vampire and takes revenge on the people who hurt her, and feels tremendous amount of debt to and love for the person who (she feels, at the time) allowed her to save herself. But as the story goes on and as her sire's selfishness and cruelty and calculation become more and more evident, Constanza finds herself in an increasingly tense and difficult situation, one in which her agency is stripped from her and she is sort of forced into a role of learned helplessness. Never before have I read something that evoked in me the tension of being in an abusive relationship, the terror of being powerless in your own home against someone you still love and are connected to deeply.
I keep calling him Dracula. He's never actually named within the book. There are a couple hints--like there is a passage where they're talking about some annoying English people called the Harkers in Victorian England that the family has to deal with at some point--and there's a tremendous amount of, like, vampiric lore that I feel was popularized if not created by Bram Stoker within Dracula. But regardless, he is never directly addressed by name as such. As I said, the novella is told in Constanza's point of view but it is also told with the direct address: YOU did this, YOU are a monster, with the "you" being Dracula in this case. For much of the story, while he holds the majority of the power, this distancing, this almost mythologizing of this incredibly powerful figure, not even giving him a name because that would be to make him base, gives him a tremendous amount of power. But towards the end given what happens the "you" goes from just a telling of what's happening to an accusation. It's Constanza's taking back her agency, it's her reclaiming The Narrative that was taken from her the moment that she was killed. Her journey of self discovery after her identity is stripped from her is empowering, and her reclamation of her religious/ethical convictions, sexuality, and understanding of her intelligence and power was exactly the story I needed when I read this book.
But until we get to that point of empowerment I cannot describe to you the degree of tension that this book holds. The power and balance is is so skewed as to almost not need to be mentioned, C and D, they're on such stratospherically different levels of control within this situation. It's one of the most accurate depictions that I have ever read about of an abusive relationship and it was absolutely chilling. The introduction of Dracula's other partners with Magdalena (who Constanza has a, like, very deep depth of emotion towards) and then Aleksei (who she also loves but in a slightly different way) it's that love and it's the those connections that finally empower them. But it I feel like the way that they love is so inhuman and vampire in nature; I think St Gibson did a really really good job of demonstrating that there is a monstrosity to this type of thing as well. Though the novella was quite short and it predominantly focused on the reclamation of agency for Constanza (and then also of Magdalena and Aleksei to a lesser degree), I feel like it also did an excellent job of addressing, like, classical vampire preoccupations, like the things that are at the cornerstones of most vampire stories. So we address themes of religiosity; of what it means to actually be a monster; of the unchanging and unadaptable nature of vampirism and what that means in its positives, like the sort of eternity of beauty, and what that means in its negatives, in terms of stagnation and how that can disallow you to continue existing in a modern sense.
I truly think that vampires are probably the sexiest monster and that that is an intentional thing; there's a tremendous degree of like sensuality and sexuality within this novella and I really enjoyed how St Gibson played with the themes of, like, vampiric obsession versus love, of ownership versus agency, of queerness, of stagnating beauty, about how the sort of societally prescriptive ideas of what love and romance are meant to look like don't necessarily play well with the mythos of this thing, and does the monstrosity come from the fact that you are undying and you need to consume blood and Life Force to live forever or are you a monster because people consider your way of living and your way of being monstrous? I don't think it's coincidence that many queer people attach ourselves to stories about monstrosity and I think St Gibson plays that line and sort of makes it evident as to why those connections exist in the first place. I absolutely loved A Dowry of Blood I will be reading everything St Gibson has to write from here on out.
Constanza’s (I regret calling her by that name, because it was given to her by Dracula/her abuser) (who is never directly named and thus afforded power by way of adding to his mystery) journey of self discovery after her identity is stripped from her is empowering, and her reclamation of her religious/ethical convictions, sexuality, and understanding of her intelligence and power was exactly the story I needed when I read this book. The relationships between her, Aleksei, and Magdalena, as well as the hints to the original story of Dracula, are just icing on the cake. I absolutely devoured it.
We follow the point of view of Dracula's first wife, a young woman named Constanza. I regret calling her by that name, because she has forgotten her real name and Constanza is the name that Dracula gave her when he sired her after a incredibly traumatic event happened to her and her family. And she comes back to life as a vampire and takes revenge on the people who hurt her, and feels tremendous amount of debt to and love for the person who (she feels, at the time) allowed her to save herself. But as the story goes on and as her sire's selfishness and cruelty and calculation become more and more evident, Constanza finds herself in an increasingly tense and difficult situation, one in which her agency is stripped from her and she is sort of forced into a role of learned helplessness. Never before have I read something that evoked in me the tension of being in an abusive relationship, the terror of being powerless in your own home against someone you still love and are connected to deeply.
I keep calling him Dracula. He's never actually named within the book. There are a couple hints--like there is a passage where they're talking about some annoying English people called the Harkers in Victorian England that the family has to deal with at some point--and there's a tremendous amount of, like, vampiric lore that I feel was popularized if not created by Bram Stoker within Dracula. But regardless, he is never directly addressed by name as such. As I said, the novella is told in Constanza's point of view but it is also told with the direct address: YOU did this, YOU are a monster, with the "you" being Dracula in this case. For much of the story, while he holds the majority of the power, this distancing, this almost mythologizing of this incredibly powerful figure, not even giving him a name because that would be to make him base, gives him a tremendous amount of power. But towards the end given what happens the "you" goes from just a telling of what's happening to an accusation. It's Constanza's taking back her agency, it's her reclaiming The Narrative that was taken from her the moment that she was killed. Her journey of self discovery after her identity is stripped from her is empowering, and her reclamation of her religious/ethical convictions, sexuality, and understanding of her intelligence and power was exactly the story I needed when I read this book.
But until we get to that point of empowerment I cannot describe to you the degree of tension that this book holds. The power and balance is is so skewed as to almost not need to be mentioned, C and D, they're on such stratospherically different levels of control within this situation. It's one of the most accurate depictions that I have ever read about of an abusive relationship and it was absolutely chilling. The introduction of Dracula's other partners with Magdalena (who Constanza has a, like, very deep depth of emotion towards) and then Aleksei (who she also loves but in a slightly different way) it's that love and it's the those connections that finally empower them. But it I feel like the way that they love is so inhuman and vampire in nature; I think St Gibson did a really really good job of demonstrating that there is a monstrosity to this type of thing as well. Though the novella was quite short and it predominantly focused on the reclamation of agency for Constanza (and then also of Magdalena and Aleksei to a lesser degree), I feel like it also did an excellent job of addressing, like, classical vampire preoccupations, like the things that are at the cornerstones of most vampire stories. So we address themes of religiosity; of what it means to actually be a monster; of the unchanging and unadaptable nature of vampirism and what that means in its positives, like the sort of eternity of beauty, and what that means in its negatives, in terms of stagnation and how that can disallow you to continue existing in a modern sense.
I truly think that vampires are probably the sexiest monster and that that is an intentional thing; there's a tremendous degree of like sensuality and sexuality within this novella and I really enjoyed how St Gibson played with the themes of, like, vampiric obsession versus love, of ownership versus agency, of queerness, of stagnating beauty, about how the sort of societally prescriptive ideas of what love and romance are meant to look like don't necessarily play well with the mythos of this thing, and does the monstrosity come from the fact that you are undying and you need to consume blood and Life Force to live forever or are you a monster because people consider your way of living and your way of being monstrous? I don't think it's coincidence that many queer people attach ourselves to stories about monstrosity and I think St Gibson plays that line and sort of makes it evident as to why those connections exist in the first place. I absolutely loved A Dowry of Blood I will be reading everything St Gibson has to write from here on out.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Confinement, Violence, Murder, Sexism, Toxic relationship, and Sexual violence
Moderate: Gaslighting, Death, Domestic abuse, and Pandemic/Epidemic
scam_lark's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Grief, Abandonment, Gore, Emotional abuse, Gaslighting, Murder, Addiction, Death, Toxic relationship, Violence, Sexual content, Blood, Confinement, and Domestic abuse
errie's review
dark
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Mental illness, Toxic relationship, Blood, Death, Confinement, Emotional abuse, Gaslighting, Sexual content, Injury/Injury detail, Murder, Domestic abuse, Self harm, and Violence
Moderate: Infidelity, War, and Physical abuse
taylormoore's review against another edition
challenging
dark
inspiring
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder, Sexual content, Blood, Confinement, and Toxic relationship
Moderate: Death, Injury/Injury detail, Gore, and Emotional abuse
Minor: Pandemic/Epidemic
judassilver's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
I am the outlier in this. I wanted to like this book so badly, the premise and glowing recommendations were so promising, but I just really didn't like it. At no point did I enjoy myself while reading it, and the greatest compliment I can give it is that it was over quickly. It just struck me as shallow all around: shallow characters operating in a shallow, recycled setting, within shallow relationships with each other, to reach shallow, already-established conclusions. I was also disappointed at the superficially researched historical details, which I would normally be more forgiving toward if they weren't the crux of the only dimension this book had. The inaccuracies, the anachronisms, and the thin characters make it hard to maintain a suspension of disbelief necessary for enjoying this book. At no point did I believe this story. I didn't buy the insta-lust/love between any of the characters, I didn't buy that they actually existed in the historical setting provided (flavorful background that never had any consequence or lasting impact btw), and most importantly I never bought that "You" was Dracula. Before reading this book all I saw was people describing this as a re-telling or re-imagining of Dracula, but I fail to see how this book is at all related to Stoker (aside from the blurb and one off-handed mention of the Harkers that came off as more of an almost insulting cameo than an homage). Where are the Gothic elements, the seductive yet toxic lure of blood-soaked immortality, the tension, where is the powerful, inhuman monster that is Dracula? It's all just set dressing on a barely sketched-out plot about domestic abuse, which would be compelling in its own right if it allowed the reader to reach their own conclusions without constant interruptions from the narrator. The retrospective distance of the letter format really hurts any emotional impact this book could have had, and it left me feeling very detached. There were very few actual scenes in this book-- very few instances where characters actually did and said things in a described setting. I felt like I was reading a collection of summaries filled out with metaphors and repetitive descriptions that occasionally made for a good quote pull that would look nice on a blog. It's a vampire story that wants to be profound but seems scared of development, ambiguity, and actually being a vampire story. It's simultaneously so overwrought yet so hollow, and ultimately it's just so very boring. A Dowry of Blood is the very definition of style over substance, unfortunately.
Specific spoilers:
Constanta only ever targets people who "deserved it" so she has the moral high ground on big bad Dracula makes me roll my eyes. Feels hypocritical when she goes on to create more immortal bloodsuckers of her own with no introspection.
The sex scenes were fine, I do feel like they were to the detriment of any possible emotional development though. This could be commentary on sex as a coping mechanism but the epilogue kinda killed that for me.
The sexual relationship between Alexi and Constanta: Ew, ew, ew, ew. I liked the setup of the implication Dracula groomed his brides, even while underage, and swooped in on their most vulnerable. That felt very real to an abuser and was a rare moment of subtlety. I could have done without Constanta getting the hots for Alexi while reiterating how young he was and how much she felt like his mom, and then having sex with him. Which again almost felt like a commentary on emotional incest and how entangled sexual and emotional relationships can get under an oppressive abuser who controls every aspect of your freedom of expression. Their splitting up at the end almost sealed this for me... and then the epilogue killed my appreciation.
"a modern Machiavelli"... 5 seconds with Google, I beg you.
Specific spoilers:
The sex scenes were fine, I do feel like they were to the detriment of any possible emotional development though. This could be commentary on sex as a coping mechanism but the epilogue kinda killed that for me.
The sexual relationship between Alexi and Constanta: Ew, ew, ew, ew. I liked the setup of the implication Dracula groomed his brides, even while underage, and swooped in on their most vulnerable. That felt very real to an abuser and was a rare moment of subtlety. I could have done without Constanta getting the hots for Alexi while reiterating how young he was and how much she felt like his mom, and then having sex with him. Which again almost felt like a commentary on emotional incest and how entangled sexual and emotional relationships can get under an oppressive abuser who controls every aspect of your freedom of expression. Their splitting up at the end almost sealed this for me... and then the epilogue killed my appreciation.
"a modern Machiavelli"... 5 seconds with Google, I beg you.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Domestic abuse, Confinement, Blood, Murder, Violence, Death, Sexual content, and Toxic relationship
Moderate: War and Religious bigotry
Minor: Mental illness
tifftastic87's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
When he found her Constanta was dying, his blood brought her back and gave her a life unlike anything she had ever experienced. But soon, the shiny veil over her eyes was raised and as he brought another woman into their marital bed, Constanta began to see him for what he was, a monster.
Constanta's growth from meek and demure wife to someone strong and protective under the abuse of her unnamed husband was such a dark ride to be on. The way abuse and control was used in this story was so real and raw that I had to pause for a moment a few times.
Constanta's growth from meek and demure wife to someone strong and protective under the abuse of her unnamed husband was such a dark ride to be on. The way abuse and control was used in this story was so real and raw that I had to pause for a moment a few times.
I was tired of the circumference of the whole universe living in your circled arms.
I was tired of carrying around the weight of a love like worship.
The way he manipulated his spouses into loving him and fearing him and how Constanta felt it as both safety and chains really got to me.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Confinement, Blood, Mental illness, Violence, and Emotional abuse
Moderate: Sexual content
sxndaze's review against another edition
dark
emotional
hopeful
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
dreamy prose that carries you across all three parts. it’s a quick read and truly delicious. gibson writes the various relationships constanta has with ease and fluidity and they’re fascinating to read.
can definitely see why it’s highly recommended by others
can definitely see why it’s highly recommended by others
Content Warnings
Graphic: Injury/Injury detail, Blood, Emotional abuse, Grief, Death, Murder, Toxic relationship, and Violence
Moderate: Sexual content and Confinement
Minor: Fire/Fire injury
jkpiowa's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Gaslighting and Emotional abuse
Moderate: Confinement
kaiyakaiyo's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
This was good. I’ve always lamented that modern Dracula adaptations squander the concept of “vampire wives” by making them oversexualized, Uber-hetero, and/or catty; im looking at you The Invitation (kinda), Van Helsing, Dracula: 2000, etc. this book takes the concept and runs in a different, much cooler direction. The sexy bits of this book weren’t very sexy (for good reason imo), but they spoke of an intimacy and connection between the spouses I’ve always wanted to see.
this book was a really nice exploration of the inherent queerness in vampirism; if you live forever, completely transgressing any & all rules of humanity, what’s stopping you from swinging any way the wind blows??? nothing! there’s no quibbling about what kind of person any of the chars are sucking & fucking, and im living for it. it probably would’ve made the book too clunky, but i would have loved it if the author tackled gender identity in vampirism too. maybe something for next time! my only real complaint here is that there were no strap-ons or whatever the ancient equivalent would be. ye olde inventors could make intricate torture devices, but not a way for women to fuck men? I can’t believe that. where was the pegging! u can’t tell me Magdalena wouldn’t have been into that
on a serious note, this book was also a very real depiction of control and abusive power dynamics. the vampire spouses are inhumanly strong, never die, never tire, but their relative strength doesn’t preclude them from being gaslit and abused. information on their vampire anatomy, wealth, independence: “dracula” holds these over Constanta, Alexi, and Magdalena as someone older and more experienced in vampire life; he whittles them down to beings who can’t fathom how they’d survive without him as a guide, and puts them to work to keep each other content in his clutches. Constanta can’t even remember her real name; just the one he gave her at “birth”. a twisted, evil man to his core, empowered by his ability to “grant” eternal life to vulnerable, isolated people he handpicks. a serial abuser given the power to give and take life as he sees fit; now THATS what I call horror.
this take on the monster that is dracula is refreshing; in media he is almost always monstrous and manipulative, but this is the first time I’ve seen that reflected in his “family life”; usually he is just Bad Because Bloodsucking. Here his murder and bloodlust takes a backseat to the interpersonal violence he commits. incredibly well done
The best thing about this book, to me, was that it wasn’t really a dracula adaptation at all. He takes only a nameless villain role in the story of love and perseverance that is Constanta/Magdalena/Alexi. I loved Constanta, she was so earnest, so honest in her retelling of her history, nearly to the point of being unkind to her past self. she laments, she foreshadows, she rages, and I felt immense compassion and empathy for her and her spouses. I could read about her discovering pants and mp3 players for 100+ more pages; she is just that charming. She writes this “letter” to help herself process; dracula is a ghost on the page of a chapter she is ready to close. loved it!!!
That being said, I did not like the “you” POV or the near-epistolary style; it was jarring and a bit distracting. i found myself getting confused between “you” meaning the dead Dracula the letter was addressed to, and “you” meaning the person being spoken to in the actual dialogue. I’ve never liked epistolary novels, so i came in with that expectation, but the pov threw me for a loop. I much preferred the style in An Education in Malice. (I liked that book more than this one, and a good bit of the reason is style). just not my cup of tea, but the characters and story were enough to outweigh my dislike of the storytelling method.
I’ve rambled enough but I really liked this, and would be thrilled to read more from this author. I really fuck with her frank interpretation of what eternal life and preternatural power would mean for relationships, and the simultaneous love and harm that would inhabit vampiric spaces. fantasy often glosses over the unsavory parts of love & sex to get to romance, but Gibson instead respectfully hones in on those elements while still managing a love story in the end. bravo
Content Warnings
Graphic: Domestic abuse, Blood, Gaslighting, Violence, Murder, Emotional abuse, Physical abuse, and Toxic relationship
Moderate: Injury/Injury detail, Death, Infidelity, Confinement, Gore, and Sexual content
Minor: War and Pandemic/Epidemic