Scan barcode
rkking's review against another edition
4.0
Dan Simmons creates a very interesting spin on the Dracula myth in this story.
Acting as a spiritual sequel to Summer Of Night, this tale has Mike O'Rourke all grown up and a priest aiding Kate, a scientist who's adopted child is abducted and taken to Transylvania for...reasons.
While not the most eventful story (it has some long sequences that could be told in a much quicker way), it's veritable tour of Romania I found to be incredibly intriguing, mostly do to my own future trip to the place. I love most takes on Dracula, and this one has a very interesting dynamic I've never really seen done before.
Join the RK King Readers' Tribe for an exclusive FREE short story, plus inside info, musings, promos and more: RK King Writes
Acting as a spiritual sequel to Summer Of Night, this tale has Mike O'Rourke all grown up and a priest aiding Kate, a scientist who's adopted child is abducted and taken to Transylvania for...reasons.
While not the most eventful story (it has some long sequences that could be told in a much quicker way), it's veritable tour of Romania I found to be incredibly intriguing, mostly do to my own future trip to the place. I love most takes on Dracula, and this one has a very interesting dynamic I've never really seen done before.
Join the RK King Readers' Tribe for an exclusive FREE short story, plus inside info, musings, promos and more: RK King Writes
zmull's review against another edition
2.0
A political / medical thriller disguised as a vampire novel. In brief, Dracula's blood cures AIDS, his minions run the shadow government in Romania, blah blah. As a thriller it's got its moments, but nothing comes close to the power of Dan Simmons on his A-game.
ckshaw13's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
billymac1962's review against another edition
2.0
Ever since learning that the legend of Dracula was based on Vlad the Impaler, and that this novel was based on that, it had been on my list. Well, I finally got in the mood for it and dove in...Well, all in all, a bit of a disappointment here. No, wait. A huge disappointment! I've been a Dan Simmons fan for years and I was really expecting something exceptional. I mean, here is one of the best writers around, we've got vampires, we've got Vlad the Impaler, and we end up with a regular
run-of-the-mill formula thriller. The best parts of the novel were the
"Dreams of Blood and Iron" interludes in which Vlad recounts his life. However, these were few and far between. I would have much preferred the novel to have spent much more time there. If you're looking for interesting vampire history, I'd suggest Brian Lumley's first Necroscope novel.
run-of-the-mill formula thriller. The best parts of the novel were the
"Dreams of Blood and Iron" interludes in which Vlad recounts his life. However, these were few and far between. I would have much preferred the novel to have spent much more time there. If you're looking for interesting vampire history, I'd suggest Brian Lumley's first Necroscope novel.
hoxton's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.75
suzemo's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.0
Come for the Dracula storyline, but stay for the Bad!science! (Very bad science, truth be told)
With the caveat that, yes, it was published in '92 and we've made significant discoveries and advances in biomedical science: Simple Punnett squares and the basics of genetic inheritance were well understood by then (I should know, I'm old enough *cough* to have studied basic genetics before then).
Simmons clearly went to Eastern Europe/Bucharest/Dracula territory and did his research. He has the habit of 'showing off' his research by going into occasional painful unnecessary details (street names where none or needed) to prove it, which is fine. He also acknowledges the people who helped him with his research, but, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the biomedical component.
So, I realize that it's a fluke of me liking horror AND having a background in biomedical science (and even better, the stuff being researched is literally in my wheelhouse), but damn if some of it wasn't pretty bad. So a few chapters in, I was utterly entranced by the Bad!Science!
So, was it a good or bad book? I honestly can't tell you, but I can tell you I was entertained as hell, all except for the casual racism (I know, I know, product of it's time), constant use of the word "r****d," and unnecessary/gratuitous rape scene.
I have a love/hate with Simmons's books, and this seems to follow that.
Also, while it technically involves a character from an earlier book - this, in no way, impedes understanding or enjoyment or the flow of the book. This isn't a linear series that relies on a previous reading.
But quick blurb: It's a Dracula/vampire story ("Children of the Night" title set in Romania makes that a non-spoiler) during the immediate post-Ceaușescu era. Hematologist cum CDC medium-big wig Dr. Neuman is in Romania, finds a baby with an unusual condition and adopts him. Studies and mayhem involving the powerful Dracula clan ensue. Bonus appearance of a Catholic priest, because this is a vampire story and no vampire story is complete without one (a priest of some variety, not necessary RC, though it usually seems to involve orthodoxy of some sort).
With the caveat that, yes, it was published in '92 and we've made significant discoveries and advances in biomedical science: Simple Punnett squares and the basics of genetic inheritance were well understood by then (I should know, I'm old enough *cough* to have studied basic genetics before then).
Simmons clearly went to Eastern Europe/Bucharest/Dracula territory and did his research. He has the habit of 'showing off' his research by going into occasional painful unnecessary details (street names where none or needed) to prove it, which is fine. He also acknowledges the people who helped him with his research, but, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the biomedical component.
So, I realize that it's a fluke of me liking horror AND having a background in biomedical science (and even better, the stuff being researched is literally in my wheelhouse), but damn if some of it wasn't pretty bad. So a few chapters in, I was utterly entranced by the Bad!Science!
So, was it a good or bad book? I honestly can't tell you, but I can tell you I was entertained as hell, all except for the casual racism (I know, I know, product of it's time), constant use of the word "r****d," and unnecessary/gratuitous rape scene.
I have a love/hate with Simmons's books, and this seems to follow that.
Also, while it technically involves a character from an earlier book - this, in no way, impedes understanding or enjoyment or the flow of the book. This isn't a linear series that relies on a previous reading.
But quick blurb: It's a Dracula/vampire story ("Children of the Night" title set in Romania makes that a non-spoiler) during the immediate post-Ceaușescu era. Hematologist cum CDC medium-big wig Dr. Neuman is in Romania, finds a baby with an unusual condition and adopts him. Studies and mayhem involving the powerful Dracula clan ensue. Bonus appearance of a Catholic priest, because this is a vampire story and no vampire story is complete without one (a priest of some variety, not necessary RC, though it usually seems to involve orthodoxy of some sort).
lisawreading's review against another edition
2.0
Dan Simmons's "Children of the Night" is an old-school vampire tale. No heart-breakingly beautiful, angst-ridden, teenage bloodsuckers here. "Children of the Night" is part medical mystery, part Cold War thriller, and revolves around the "father" of the strigoi (vampires) -- Dracula himself. Published in 1992, this book definitely feels like an anachronism, given the flavor of most vampire stories today. There's nothing sexy here -- the vampires are menacing, cruel, and repulsive. The protagonist, Kate Neumann, is an American hematologist trying to unlock the mystery of an orphaned Romanian child with a rare autoimmune deficiency, which seems to go away whenever the boy receives a tranfusion of human blood. Intriguingly, "Children of the Night" posits a medical explanation for vampirism, which Kate hopes will also hold the key to a cure for AIDS and cancer. The book reads like a thriller, with lots of adventure and nail-biting situations, although surprisingly little in the way of creeps and chills. An enjoyable read, but it did feel a little out of date.
suzemo's review against another edition
2.0
Come for the Dracula storyline, but stay for the Bad!science! (Very bad science, truth be told)
With the caveat that, yes, it was published in '92 and we've made significant discoveries and advances in biomedical science: Simple Punnett squares and the basics of genetic inheritance were well understood by then (I should know, I'm old enough *cough* to have studied basic genetics before then).
Simmons clearly went to Eastern Europe/Bucharest/Dracula territory and did his research. He has the habit of 'showing off' his research by going into occasional painful unnecessary details (street names where none or needed) to prove it, which is fine. He also acknowledges the people who helped him with his research, but, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the biomedical component.
So, I realize that it's a fluke of me liking horror AND having a background in biomedical science (and even better, the stuff being researched is literally in my wheelhouse), but damn if some of it wasn't pretty bad. So a few chapters in, I was utterly entranced by the Bad!Science!
So, was it a good or bad book? I honestly can't tell you, but I can tell you I was entertained as hell, all except for the casual racism (I know, I know, product of it's time), constant use of the word "r****d," and unnecessary/gratuitous rape scene.
I have a love/hate with Simmons's books, and this seems to follow that.
Also, while it technically involves a character from an earlier book - this, in no way, impedes understanding or enjoyment or the flow of the book. This isn't a linear series that relies on a previous reading.
But quick blurb: It's a Dracula/vampire story ("Children of the Night" title set in Romania makes that a non-spoiler) during the immediate post-Ceaușescu era. Hematologist cum CDC medium-big wig Dr. Neuman is in Romania, finds a baby with an unusual condition and adopts him. Studies and mayhem involving the powerful Dracula clan ensue. Bonus appearance of a Catholic priest, because this is a vampire story and no vampire story is complete without one (a priest of some variety, not necessary RC, though it usually seems to involve orthodoxy of some sort).
With the caveat that, yes, it was published in '92 and we've made significant discoveries and advances in biomedical science: Simple Punnett squares and the basics of genetic inheritance were well understood by then (I should know, I'm old enough *cough* to have studied basic genetics before then).
Simmons clearly went to Eastern Europe/Bucharest/Dracula territory and did his research. He has the habit of 'showing off' his research by going into occasional painful unnecessary details (street names where none or needed) to prove it, which is fine. He also acknowledges the people who helped him with his research, but, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the biomedical component.
So, I realize that it's a fluke of me liking horror AND having a background in biomedical science (and even better, the stuff being researched is literally in my wheelhouse), but damn if some of it wasn't pretty bad. So a few chapters in, I was utterly entranced by the Bad!Science!
So, was it a good or bad book? I honestly can't tell you, but I can tell you I was entertained as hell, all except for the casual racism (I know, I know, product of it's time), constant use of the word "r****d," and unnecessary/gratuitous rape scene.
I have a love/hate with Simmons's books, and this seems to follow that.
Also, while it technically involves a character from an earlier book - this, in no way, impedes understanding or enjoyment or the flow of the book. This isn't a linear series that relies on a previous reading.
But quick blurb: It's a Dracula/vampire story ("Children of the Night" title set in Romania makes that a non-spoiler) during the immediate post-Ceaușescu era. Hematologist cum CDC medium-big wig Dr. Neuman is in Romania, finds a baby with an unusual condition and adopts him. Studies and mayhem involving the powerful Dracula clan ensue. Bonus appearance of a Catholic priest, because this is a vampire story and no vampire story is complete without one (a priest of some variety, not necessary RC, though it usually seems to involve orthodoxy of some sort).
wannabekingpin's review against another edition
3.0
all reviews in one place:
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: Post-communist Romania, still running on not yet uprooted remnants of nasty regime, is where Kate’s source of frustration and salvation lies. A child with supernatural immune system, so powerful that if only she could get the kid out of the country, and into a proper, state of the art lab, there’d be no more incurable illness or disease. But Romania has long since been the cradle of Dark Secrets, and so, forces that serve them are unwilling to give up the child they could use to revive Him with…
My Opinion: The book is told from two perspectives; Kate’s, and Dracula’s, who tells his tale, and explains how he’s learning of things happening around him. Mythos of vampires is well woven, and in general it was a very interesting read. Except that I almost died of boredom when author saw the need to describe bureaucracy in such detail and extent, and then provide all of the characters who just happen to know all the right people, and have all the right skills. Kate was annoying too, unusually so, and her co-workers were the worst by being the best with their praises to Kate, oh, if anyone, you can surely do it. Yes, okay, great, fun. The book is good enough that I’d read sequel if there was one (series is not of connected books, they’re all stand-alones), but bad enough that I wouldn’t recommend it.
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: Post-communist Romania, still running on not yet uprooted remnants of nasty regime, is where Kate’s source of frustration and salvation lies. A child with supernatural immune system, so powerful that if only she could get the kid out of the country, and into a proper, state of the art lab, there’d be no more incurable illness or disease. But Romania has long since been the cradle of Dark Secrets, and so, forces that serve them are unwilling to give up the child they could use to revive Him with…
My Opinion: The book is told from two perspectives; Kate’s, and Dracula’s, who tells his tale, and explains how he’s learning of things happening around him. Mythos of vampires is well woven, and in general it was a very interesting read. Except that I almost died of boredom when author saw the need to describe bureaucracy in such detail and extent, and then provide all of the characters who just happen to know all the right people, and have all the right skills. Kate was annoying too, unusually so, and her co-workers were the worst by being the best with their praises to Kate, oh, if anyone, you can surely do it. Yes, okay, great, fun. The book is good enough that I’d read sequel if there was one (series is not of connected books, they’re all stand-alones), but bad enough that I wouldn’t recommend it.