Scan barcode
nikshelby's review against another edition
3.0
Written by Bram’s grandnephew, this book was a interesting sequel. I hated some parts. I hated their interpretation of how the heroes of “Dracula” would have responded to their previous adventures – particularly Van Helsing. I’m undecided on their reinterpretation of Dracula himself…I’m still thinking about it.
The main redeeming element? The introduction of Elizabeth Bathory. The success of Bathory worked for me; not only because she was an excellent villain, but because (like Dracula) there is a real historical Elizabeth Bathory – a famous serial killer who bathed in blood to keep her youth.
I also enjoyed the tie-in with the Jack-the-Ripper mystery, the appearance of Bram Stoker himself, and future potential of the story-migration to America.
The main redeeming element? The introduction of Elizabeth Bathory. The success of Bathory worked for me; not only because she was an excellent villain, but because (like Dracula) there is a real historical Elizabeth Bathory – a famous serial killer who bathed in blood to keep her youth.
I also enjoyed the tie-in with the Jack-the-Ripper mystery, the appearance of Bram Stoker himself, and future potential of the story-migration to America.
sarahanne8382's review against another edition
2.0
Having recently re-read the original Dracula, my memories of this one are more tarnished. I forgot what a master Bram Stoker was, making this mediocre work all the more disappointing. I'm keeping it at two stars because, while it's trash, it's trash I keep thinking about, so it's sort of like those cult classic B-movies that are really bad, but there's still something enjoyable watching how bad they are.
Spoiler
I think Bram Stoker could've made me believe a plot where Mina Harker has been secretly waiting for Dracula's return so they could be together for eternity, but Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt just didn't quite pull it off.kmjmg's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
It was pretty good. I didn't much care for the lesbian parts but other than that it was a good read.
dinosaurhorrorshow's review against another edition
There is nothing in this book to keep me engaged.
pandothiel's review against another edition
1.0
I first read this book almost 10 years ago, back when I was 14 and Twilight was the best book in the world, without having read Dracula, and I enjoyed it. I wanted to re-read it, right after having read Dracula a second time... and oh boy. I don't know if I wanted to laugh, cry, or just throw away this book and pretend it never existed.
DS and IH wanted to write a plausible story that would follow Dracula and tie the loose ends; it just ended up calling the first novel inaccurate and explaining what it did 'wrong'. It just betrayed it, and did not do it any justice.
For a 'horror' sequel, it just ended up being a story closer to a thriller with GOT-like outbursts of violence and pathetic scenes far removed from the horror of Dracula. Bram Stocker created an eerie and disturbing atmosphere that chilled the reader to the bone. This book just disgusted me.
I didn't even like the style. It was at times flowery, then text-book like, and it explained everything to the reader without any subtelty. I don't need an entire scene that is going to explain one line.
Spoilers follow, beware!
This book wanted to tackle:
- The 'true' nature of Dracula
- The appearance of a new villain
- A mystery plot where detectives investigate the crimes
- Background for all characters from Dracula
- Background of all the new characters (even the most insignificant ones)
- Text book biography of Stocker
- Tying Dracula to Jack the Ripper
- The main plot of the story
Aaaand I'm sure I'm forgetting some. No need to say that it was way too much to tackle, and none of it was done correctly. This story did not do any justice to any of the characters, or even Bram Stocker (who was included in the novel... why? Just why?).
Now onto the characters:
Mina Harker
She was a school teacher... she's now a journalist! Her entire life was changed for... no reason at all. If sexual intercourse happened with Dracula in the first novel, it was rape. She hated the vampire. She was disgusted by him. She even called herself spoiled when she was forced to drink his blood. And now it's all romance and love? Urgh. Their love is only infatuation and sexual desire. We get it, she's horny. There's nothing else to it.
Jonathan Harker
Just an alcoholic who can't take care of his son. He cheats on Mina with prostitutes. Same as her wife, if he had sexual intercourse with the three vampires, then it was rape. More like, gang-rape. And he should feel ashamed of it? Urgh. Jonathan was one of my favourite characters from Dracula, and he is now reduced to an unfaithful husband who drowns his sorrows in alcohol.
Doctor Seward
The drug addict who sides up with Dracula? Please. Need I say more?
Abraham Van Helsing
The vampire hunter who dedicated his life to do God's work and rid the world of evil and vampires. Only to decide he wants to become a vampire - who was, after all, a creature of God - joins Dracula and teams up with him.
Dracula
A FUCKING ACTOR? A SERVENT OF GOD? WHO WANTS TO SAVE THE WORLD? WHO'S IN LOVE WITH MINA? WHO'S ALL ROMANTIC AND SWEET AND EVERYTHING? Please. Just let me throw up already.
Elizabeth Bathory
The true villain of both Dracula and Dracula the Un-Dead! I do not understand her, or her reasoning. She's homosexual, fair enough. She was beaten up and rape by her husband and she desires revenge, I get it. But how does that turn her into a creature who tortures and kills women and prostitutes? How did that happen? I was not moved by her, nor scared of her.
Can I also add how the only LGBT+ character ends up being the villain - and a particular cruel one - is insulting to the community?
Quincey was the only likeable character to me. The murder mystery was useless. The opening to a possible sequel was stupid. It betrayed so many things established by Dracula - if the fog is only a mental illusion created by a vampire, how could Lucy escape her coffin and tomb then go back inside? How could she fit through this tiny hole when Van Helsing let her escape? If Dracula was a servent of God, why did the crucifix manage to repel him? Rather than dealing with those incoherences, DS and IH just blame Bram Stoker, within the story, for having wrongly reported the story and wrote a piss-poor version of the tale. Far from honouring his memory, I found it insulting.
How can you claim to love Dracula and yet write this?
DS and IH wanted to write a plausible story that would follow Dracula and tie the loose ends; it just ended up calling the first novel inaccurate and explaining what it did 'wrong'. It just betrayed it, and did not do it any justice.
For a 'horror' sequel, it just ended up being a story closer to a thriller with GOT-like outbursts of violence and pathetic scenes far removed from the horror of Dracula. Bram Stocker created an eerie and disturbing atmosphere that chilled the reader to the bone. This book just disgusted me.
I didn't even like the style. It was at times flowery, then text-book like, and it explained everything to the reader without any subtelty. I don't need an entire scene that is going to explain one line.
Spoilers follow, beware!
This book wanted to tackle:
- The 'true' nature of Dracula
- The appearance of a new villain
- A mystery plot where detectives investigate the crimes
- Background for all characters from Dracula
- Background of all the new characters (even the most insignificant ones)
- Text book biography of Stocker
- Tying Dracula to Jack the Ripper
- The main plot of the story
Aaaand I'm sure I'm forgetting some. No need to say that it was way too much to tackle, and none of it was done correctly. This story did not do any justice to any of the characters, or even Bram Stocker (who was included in the novel... why? Just why?).
Now onto the characters:
Mina Harker
She was a school teacher... she's now a journalist! Her entire life was changed for... no reason at all. If sexual intercourse happened with Dracula in the first novel, it was rape. She hated the vampire. She was disgusted by him. She even called herself spoiled when she was forced to drink his blood. And now it's all romance and love? Urgh. Their love is only infatuation and sexual desire. We get it, she's horny. There's nothing else to it.
Jonathan Harker
Just an alcoholic who can't take care of his son. He cheats on Mina with prostitutes. Same as her wife, if he had sexual intercourse with the three vampires, then it was rape. More like, gang-rape. And he should feel ashamed of it? Urgh. Jonathan was one of my favourite characters from Dracula, and he is now reduced to an unfaithful husband who drowns his sorrows in alcohol.
Doctor Seward
The drug addict who sides up with Dracula? Please. Need I say more?
Abraham Van Helsing
The vampire hunter who dedicated his life to do God's work and rid the world of evil and vampires. Only to decide he wants to become a vampire - who was, after all, a creature of God - joins Dracula and teams up with him.
Dracula
A FUCKING ACTOR? A SERVENT OF GOD? WHO WANTS TO SAVE THE WORLD? WHO'S IN LOVE WITH MINA? WHO'S ALL ROMANTIC AND SWEET AND EVERYTHING? Please. Just let me throw up already.
Elizabeth Bathory
The true villain of both Dracula and Dracula the Un-Dead! I do not understand her, or her reasoning. She's homosexual, fair enough. She was beaten up and rape by her husband and she desires revenge, I get it. But how does that turn her into a creature who tortures and kills women and prostitutes? How did that happen? I was not moved by her, nor scared of her.
Can I also add how the only LGBT+ character ends up being the villain - and a particular cruel one - is insulting to the community?
Quincey was the only likeable character to me. The murder mystery was useless. The opening to a possible sequel was stupid. It betrayed so many things established by Dracula - if the fog is only a mental illusion created by a vampire, how could Lucy escape her coffin and tomb then go back inside? How could she fit through this tiny hole when Van Helsing let her escape? If Dracula was a servent of God, why did the crucifix manage to repel him? Rather than dealing with those incoherences, DS and IH just blame Bram Stoker, within the story, for having wrongly reported the story and wrote a piss-poor version of the tale. Far from honouring his memory, I found it insulting.
How can you claim to love Dracula and yet write this?
narzack's review against another edition
1.0
Yo, this book sucks, bro. Really poor line-by-line writing and chock-full of cliches. The main villain is laughably corny, and Dracula is turned into a pining, misunderstood tragic dork. The writers claimed they were reclaiming the character back for the Stoker family, but I think this shows that the Stoker's aren't good stewards of the Granddaddy Bloodsucker. I guess on the plus side, the plotting is solid and clearly written with a film in mind, and it's easy to read.
On the other hand, I don't care if it was real, Basarab is dumb name.
On the other hand, I don't care if it was real, Basarab is dumb name.
sir_scott's review against another edition
3.0
Better than Darcy Coates
on par with Alice Feeney.
2.5 STARS
on par with Alice Feeney.
2.5 STARS
wannabekingpin's review against another edition
4.0
all reviews in one place:
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About: About twenty years after that little band of heroes got terrorized by the truth of vampire existence, Quincey Harker, son of Mina and Jonathan Harkers, against his father’s wishes, but in secret as to not lose his financial support, is pursuing a career as an actor. All is well and good, really. He even gets to meet his hero, his idol, famous actor named Basarab, who fully supports the boy’s want to become an actor, even if his father disapproves. Basarab even promises help, connections. All in return of a small favor Quincey can absolutely provide: introduce him to Bram Stoker. For, you see, Stoker is now building a play called “Dracula”, and Basarab has a few words about it…
But this is where Quincey’s life as he knows it crumbles to dust, bit by bit. The play is based on the book, the manuscript by the same title. In that story the main heroes are his mother, father, and their friends, in hunt of this vampire named Dracula. With fury of thoughts, among which not the smallest is the youthful look of his mother, who easily passes for his sister, Quincey hurries home. Yet, some secrets should remain buried in the past. For no sooner is Quincey able to find some information, confront his mother, as his father is found dead. Impaled.
Mine: The characters seem mentally challenged. They neither have logic, nor can see any. They will listen to absolutely nothing they don’t want to believe in, even if their own beliefs have absolutely no basis other than their own fantasies and fictional books they’ve read. Bram Stoker didn’t even bother to change the names of the people from diaries he presented as his book, apparently. Yes, why do that when you try to outbest your writer friends, such as Oscar Wilde. But. While I equally hate and love Dacre Stoker’s books, I must say, no matter how stupid the plot gets at times, for there’s plenty of second-hand shame I felt, they’re well written. I mean, I need a moment there and here to process the ridiculous ideas, but then, I read further, because I want to, because I’m curious. So, ah… Well done?
So. Dracula wasn’t the only vampire out there. Jack the Ripper wasn’t who you thought he was. And Titanic carried passengers from Stoker’s Dracula. For all of that, for this one and only clever ruse, for nothing else in this book was clever, I give it as much as 4 out of 5. And, you know what? I’d read another one.
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About: About twenty years after that little band of heroes got terrorized by the truth of vampire existence, Quincey Harker, son of Mina and Jonathan Harkers, against his father’s wishes, but in secret as to not lose his financial support, is pursuing a career as an actor. All is well and good, really. He even gets to meet his hero, his idol, famous actor named Basarab, who fully supports the boy’s want to become an actor, even if his father disapproves. Basarab even promises help, connections. All in return of a small favor Quincey can absolutely provide: introduce him to Bram Stoker. For, you see, Stoker is now building a play called “Dracula”, and Basarab has a few words about it…
But this is where Quincey’s life as he knows it crumbles to dust, bit by bit. The play is based on the book, the manuscript by the same title. In that story the main heroes are his mother, father, and their friends, in hunt of this vampire named Dracula. With fury of thoughts, among which not the smallest is the youthful look of his mother, who easily passes for his sister, Quincey hurries home. Yet, some secrets should remain buried in the past. For no sooner is Quincey able to find some information, confront his mother, as his father is found dead. Impaled.
Mine: The characters seem mentally challenged. They neither have logic, nor can see any. They will listen to absolutely nothing they don’t want to believe in, even if their own beliefs have absolutely no basis other than their own fantasies and fictional books they’ve read. Bram Stoker didn’t even bother to change the names of the people from diaries he presented as his book, apparently. Yes, why do that when you try to outbest your writer friends, such as Oscar Wilde. But. While I equally hate and love Dacre Stoker’s books, I must say, no matter how stupid the plot gets at times, for there’s plenty of second-hand shame I felt, they’re well written. I mean, I need a moment there and here to process the ridiculous ideas, but then, I read further, because I want to, because I’m curious. So, ah… Well done?
So. Dracula wasn’t the only vampire out there. Jack the Ripper wasn’t who you thought he was. And Titanic carried passengers from Stoker’s Dracula. For all of that, for this one and only clever ruse, for nothing else in this book was clever, I give it as much as 4 out of 5. And, you know what? I’d read another one.
rallyk's review against another edition
2.0
Определено ми беше адски скучна книга. В един момент ми заприлича буквално на някоя сапунка от тези които бабите следят само, че с малко повечко кръв... А да не говорим, че това с "Титаник" ме разби от смях... РОФЛ! Seriously?!?!
elodie2711's review against another edition
3.0
** attention, peut comporter des spoilers **
Voilà plusieurs jours que j'ai terminé ce livre, mais je reste toujours un peu dubitative.
Sur la couverture il est écrit qu'il s'agit de la "suite" de l'oeuvre de Stoker, d'après ses "notes originales". En l'empruntant à la biblio, je pensais retrouver les protagonistes une nouvelle fois aux prises avec Dracula, une nouvelle fois embarqués dans une aventure aux portes de l'Enfer. Au lieu de ça, j'ai trouvé des héros éloignés les uns des autres et se fourvoyant gravement sur le nom de leur ennemi : Dracula le comte suceur de sang n'est plus qu'une espèce de "gentil" vampire cherchant à éliminer le véritable monstre : la comtesse Elizabeth Bathory, lesbienne accro aux bains de sang (sens figuré ET littéral).
Bathory fut l'un de mes personnages préférés, malgré évidemment sa folie furieuse. Les auteurs, Dacre Stoker et Ian Holt, ont, à la fin du livre, justifié leur "écarts" par rapport au roman original par le fait qu'Hollywood a "pillé" l'oeuvre originale et qu'ils voulaient par conséquent restaurer l'honneur de Bram Stoker en l'incluant dans le livre.
Parce que oui, Stoker en personne se trouve dans le bouquin, directeur de théâtre vieillissant qui a "détourné" l'histoire de Dracula contée par Van Helsing dans un bar pour en faire un monstre. Cet élément m'a un peu désarçonnée mais bon, j'ai continué à lire, parce que mis à part tous ces écarts l'histoire est assez bonne, bien menée, les pages se tournent assez facilement. Un seul bémol selon moi, le style un peu "scénaristique" du roman, dû sans doute à l'influence de Holt lui-même scénariste, et un peu trop de clichés qui m'ont fait plus d'une fois lever les yeux au ciel... Et aussi la propension un peu trop prononcée des auteurs pour le gore et le sang, le "sensationel", en somme.
Que dire des personnages... Un peu clichés aussi somme toute, le morphinomane, le bourgeois suicidaire, la damoiselle en pâmoison devant son Prince des Ténèbres... Bon ! J'ai eu plus d'une fois envie de gifler Quincey Harker, ou bien de lui hurler dessus à défaut, et la fin m'a bien laissée perplexe.
Mais ma "passion" (lol) pour l'époque victorienne l'a un peu emportée sur le reste, et je me suis un peu délectée, malgré le cliché, du portrait de Seward accro à la morphine (oui bon l'intrigue se passe au vingtième siècle mais c'est pas si loin de Victoria!! xD), héro victorien déchu qui s'éclipse un peu trop vite à mon goût. Et évidemment les auteurs ont ajouté une "carotte" pour les lecteurs en la personne de Jack l'Eventreur, dont l'identité n'est ni plus ni moins que révélée dans le roman ! (Je ne vous dirai pas qui c'est mais on s'en doute un chouïa, même si les auteurs brouillent un peu les pistes et font des personnages, surtout Cotford qui y aura cru jusqu'au bout, des naïfs parfois frisant le ridicule !)
Pour conclure, je dirais qu'en tant que "sequel" ce livre ne tient pas ses promesses, en cela que ce n'est pas vraiment une suite mais simplement une espèce "d'explication" du roman de Bram, plutôt qu'une suite en bonne et due forme de son Dracula. L'histoire reste malgré tout intéressante et assez agréable, si on garde l'esprit ouvert et si on n'est pas trop regardant...!
Voilà plusieurs jours que j'ai terminé ce livre, mais je reste toujours un peu dubitative.
Sur la couverture il est écrit qu'il s'agit de la "suite" de l'oeuvre de Stoker, d'après ses "notes originales". En l'empruntant à la biblio, je pensais retrouver les protagonistes une nouvelle fois aux prises avec Dracula, une nouvelle fois embarqués dans une aventure aux portes de l'Enfer. Au lieu de ça, j'ai trouvé des héros éloignés les uns des autres et se fourvoyant gravement sur le nom de leur ennemi : Dracula le comte suceur de sang n'est plus qu'une espèce de "gentil" vampire cherchant à éliminer le véritable monstre : la comtesse Elizabeth Bathory, lesbienne accro aux bains de sang (sens figuré ET littéral).
Bathory fut l'un de mes personnages préférés, malgré évidemment sa folie furieuse. Les auteurs, Dacre Stoker et Ian Holt, ont, à la fin du livre, justifié leur "écarts" par rapport au roman original par le fait qu'Hollywood a "pillé" l'oeuvre originale et qu'ils voulaient par conséquent restaurer l'honneur de Bram Stoker en l'incluant dans le livre.
Parce que oui, Stoker en personne se trouve dans le bouquin, directeur de théâtre vieillissant qui a "détourné" l'histoire de Dracula contée par Van Helsing dans un bar pour en faire un monstre. Cet élément m'a un peu désarçonnée mais bon, j'ai continué à lire, parce que mis à part tous ces écarts l'histoire est assez bonne, bien menée, les pages se tournent assez facilement. Un seul bémol selon moi, le style un peu "scénaristique" du roman, dû sans doute à l'influence de Holt lui-même scénariste, et un peu trop de clichés qui m'ont fait plus d'une fois lever les yeux au ciel... Et aussi la propension un peu trop prononcée des auteurs pour le gore et le sang, le "sensationel", en somme.
Que dire des personnages... Un peu clichés aussi somme toute, le morphinomane, le bourgeois suicidaire, la damoiselle en pâmoison devant son Prince des Ténèbres... Bon ! J'ai eu plus d'une fois envie de gifler Quincey Harker, ou bien de lui hurler dessus à défaut, et la fin m'a bien laissée perplexe.
Mais ma "passion" (lol) pour l'époque victorienne l'a un peu emportée sur le reste, et je me suis un peu délectée, malgré le cliché, du portrait de Seward accro à la morphine (oui bon l'intrigue se passe au vingtième siècle mais c'est pas si loin de Victoria!! xD), héro victorien déchu qui s'éclipse un peu trop vite à mon goût. Et évidemment les auteurs ont ajouté une "carotte" pour les lecteurs en la personne de Jack l'Eventreur, dont l'identité n'est ni plus ni moins que révélée dans le roman ! (Je ne vous dirai pas qui c'est mais on s'en doute un chouïa, même si les auteurs brouillent un peu les pistes et font des personnages, surtout Cotford qui y aura cru jusqu'au bout, des naïfs parfois frisant le ridicule !)
Pour conclure, je dirais qu'en tant que "sequel" ce livre ne tient pas ses promesses, en cela que ce n'est pas vraiment une suite mais simplement une espèce "d'explication" du roman de Bram, plutôt qu'une suite en bonne et due forme de son Dracula. L'histoire reste malgré tout intéressante et assez agréable, si on garde l'esprit ouvert et si on n'est pas trop regardant...!