Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
While “Abraham Lincoln” was a well woven biography with bits of vampires thrown in, “The Last American Vampire” is highlights of major historical events in last 500 years, with the majority being American history. If it was just American history, then I would probably have liked it more. Instead, it’s disconnected and messy.
On another note, I listened to the audiobook version and the narrator is 10/10.
On another note, I listened to the audiobook version and the narrator is 10/10.
I liked this book’s witty, dry edge and the myriad of fun historical references. It eventually got bogged down by them and would have probably been better with a select handful. Also it seemed like Henry couldn’t care to be a real character in most of this one, so it couldn’t really compete with the original book telling Abe’s story.
--I received an ARC of this book via the Goodreads Firstreads program.--
First off, if you haven’t read Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter yet, do so before reading The Last American Vampire. This is not a sequel, but the plot twists and character developments will certainly have more impact if you read Grahame-Smith’s initial vampire novel first.
I originally did not expect much of this book. Admittedly, I enjoyed ALVH for its pulpy elements and creative rendering of the causes of the Civil War. But TLAS impressed me beyond my expectations. The research is meticulous and enormous in scope—it would have to be, because the novel spans about 500 years of American history. The book’s primary weakness, however, was just that— its enormous scope. I think each of the “episodes” of history that Henry Sturges, the vampiric protagonist, finds himself in could be expanded into their own novels to create a series. This may be a bit of a gimmick, but the strength of Grahame-Smith’s writing, my interest in history, and my fondness for the character of Henry would keep me reading, at least. This would also allow the author to spend more time developing influential historical figures that make cameo appearances in the novel.
What I love most about the novel is the total revision of vampire folklore. The primary vampire characters are not what you might expect—they are not malevolent (in fact they’re members of “The Union,” a society of vampires formed to protect America), they are not in league against the church, they kill to survive, and choose their victims judiciously. Yet they still retain the famous mystique of the quintessential vampire.
Henry himself struggles with his immortal identity. His feelings of guilt, his acknowledgement of God , his capacity for love, friendship, nostalgia, sense of patriotism, and compassion, and his righteous anger destroy the automatic perception of evil we have when we think of vampires. Oh, and he’s handsome. Very handsome.
Despite the main character’s soft side, this novel contains just as much violence, blood, and guts—probably more—as the first. If you have a vivid visual imagination, beware. I found myself quite queasy during certain scenes, especially at the novel’s climax.
The book alters our prior supernatural understanding of vampires and suggests instead that a human’s transformation from mortal to immortal is based in science—i.e. it is physical rather than paranormal. This enables Grahame-Smith to create some interesting plot developments via Henry’s discomfort with his identity, and the scientific, almost biomechanical exploration of vampires throughout the novel is certainly a strong point.
Some of the events in the first half of the novel do not seem to make sense until the end—but stick it through, it’s worth it. The resolution is satisfying.
A word of caution: the ending doesn’t hint at a sequel, but makes the reader wish there was one in the works…
First off, if you haven’t read Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter yet, do so before reading The Last American Vampire. This is not a sequel, but the plot twists and character developments will certainly have more impact if you read Grahame-Smith’s initial vampire novel first.
I originally did not expect much of this book. Admittedly, I enjoyed ALVH for its pulpy elements and creative rendering of the causes of the Civil War. But TLAS impressed me beyond my expectations. The research is meticulous and enormous in scope—it would have to be, because the novel spans about 500 years of American history. The book’s primary weakness, however, was just that— its enormous scope. I think each of the “episodes” of history that Henry Sturges, the vampiric protagonist, finds himself in could be expanded into their own novels to create a series. This may be a bit of a gimmick, but the strength of Grahame-Smith’s writing, my interest in history, and my fondness for the character of Henry would keep me reading, at least. This would also allow the author to spend more time developing influential historical figures that make cameo appearances in the novel.
What I love most about the novel is the total revision of vampire folklore. The primary vampire characters are not what you might expect—they are not malevolent (in fact they’re members of “The Union,” a society of vampires formed to protect America), they are not in league against the church, they kill to survive, and choose their victims judiciously. Yet they still retain the famous mystique of the quintessential vampire.
Henry himself struggles with his immortal identity. His feelings of guilt, his acknowledgement of God , his capacity for love, friendship, nostalgia, sense of patriotism, and compassion, and his righteous anger destroy the automatic perception of evil we have when we think of vampires. Oh, and he’s handsome. Very handsome.
Despite the main character’s soft side, this novel contains just as much violence, blood, and guts—probably more—as the first. If you have a vivid visual imagination, beware. I found myself quite queasy during certain scenes, especially at the novel’s climax.
The book alters our prior supernatural understanding of vampires and suggests instead that a human’s transformation from mortal to immortal is based in science—i.e. it is physical rather than paranormal. This enables Grahame-Smith to create some interesting plot developments via Henry’s discomfort with his identity, and the scientific, almost biomechanical exploration of vampires throughout the novel is certainly a strong point.
Some of the events in the first half of the novel do not seem to make sense until the end—but stick it through, it’s worth it. The resolution is satisfying.
A word of caution: the ending doesn’t hint at a sequel, but makes the reader wish there was one in the works…
I love his books and the way he mixes fiction with history/existing material. It was really fun how closely this book tied in to the Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter too. I’m taking a history class right now and it was pretty great to hear him telling the story of what I’m learning about. I feel like this author can do no wrong and I’ll basically read anything he writes.
Not as good as Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, but still enjoyable. Sometimes the story seemed to jump around a bit, but Henry is a likeable character.
This book started out really strong. The writing in the introduction was beautiful. I really liked the concept of us hearing more about Henry's life considering he was an integral part of the first book but we never knew much about him. I think where it lost me a bit was there were a lot of events crammed into one book. The strength of the first one was it was based on reality, but it focused on one main historical timeline. This one was all over the map. I liked that it drew from history, but it was just a little too much. I still enjoyed the overarching story, and the ending was strong, it just got a bit wibbly in the middle.
I really wanted to like this book the way i loved Abraham Lincoln. I did not. it lacked the structure and the developed characters his first book had.
I am really disappointed by this book, I really thought I would love it, I really tried to, but I just couldn't get into it and had to stop trying, I didn't even finish it...
I don't really understand what happened. I loved Pride and Prejudices and Zombie, I gave it 5 stars. It was funny, it was obviously done with a real love (and knowledge) of the book it originally took from, it was witty, the characters where awesome and even the changes made to them were actually amazing. And I really like Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter too. I'm not a specialist of that time, or of that person, but I felt it was well researched, or at least the whole story was very coherent. You could read it as someone that like history and find it very clever on how it instilled vampires into it. And I thought it was well written, funny, and that the characters were well rounded. I gave it a 4 stars.
And then... Well, I think this one was just to much. I kinda liked Henry's character, that was not really the issue. And I mean BRAM STOKER AND CONAN ARTHUR DOYLE ? Fangasm right ? Well not so much. Everything felt a little too much like name droppings. I felt like the author just wanted to put as many historical figures in the novel as he could, as many historical events as possible. Henry basically met EVERYONE and did EVERYTHING.
It should have been very exciting, instead I found it boring. I felt each story, each character was far from being developped enough. It was a little like being in a fast train an seeing stuff passing in the windows. It was kinda pretty, sometimes fun, but not very worth remembering.
It still gets two stars because I still feel it was not a bad book, just not the one for me. And a little rushed maybe, or to big. I really hope Seth Grahame-Smith will go back to being a little more focused. (Also I found it a little more fun, as in funny but also as in surprising than the others).
I don't really understand what happened. I loved Pride and Prejudices and Zombie, I gave it 5 stars. It was funny, it was obviously done with a real love (and knowledge) of the book it originally took from, it was witty, the characters where awesome and even the changes made to them were actually amazing. And I really like Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter too. I'm not a specialist of that time, or of that person, but I felt it was well researched, or at least the whole story was very coherent. You could read it as someone that like history and find it very clever on how it instilled vampires into it. And I thought it was well written, funny, and that the characters were well rounded. I gave it a 4 stars.
And then... Well, I think this one was just to much. I kinda liked Henry's character, that was not really the issue. And I mean BRAM STOKER AND CONAN ARTHUR DOYLE ? Fangasm right ? Well not so much. Everything felt a little too much like name droppings. I felt like the author just wanted to put as many historical figures in the novel as he could, as many historical events as possible. Henry basically met EVERYONE and did EVERYTHING.
It should have been very exciting, instead I found it boring. I felt each story, each character was far from being developped enough. It was a little like being in a fast train an seeing stuff passing in the windows. It was kinda pretty, sometimes fun, but not very worth remembering.
It still gets two stars because I still feel it was not a bad book, just not the one for me. And a little rushed maybe, or to big. I really hope Seth Grahame-Smith will go back to being a little more focused. (Also I found it a little more fun, as in funny but also as in surprising than the others).
I enjoyed this story more than I thought I would. I like how the author throws some real history in with the fiction. So you do actually learn a bit about these famous people in the past. It also didn't feel too long or drawn out. It was entertaining and informative.
I had really been looking forward to reading this, since I loved ALVH so much to the point that I couldn't put it down. I thought Henry's story would be just as amazing, but it fell flat for me. There were parts of the book that I really loved and enjoyed reading, but other parts felt "lacking". All in all. I did enjoy this book, but I really wanted to love it.