Scan barcode
A review by throatsprockets
Anno Dracula by Kim Newman
3.0
Well this sure was a mixed bag. The idea of changing the end of Dracula so that the vampire wins, woos Queen Victoria and rules the British Empire as Prince Consort is a terrific conceit. Unfortunately too much of the book gets bogged down in a murder mystery that is ill-conceived from the start. Our two protagonists, secret agent Charles Beauregard and 400 year old vampire Geneviève Dieudonné, are assigned with the task of tracking down this reality's version of Jack the Ripper, who is slicing up vampire sex workers in Whitechapel. Despite their supposedly formidable combined wisdom and experience, they proceed to blithely follow along behing the trail of killings while ignoring or grossly misinterpreting all of the obvious clues that are placed in their way.
If the identity of the killer was even nominally kept secret from the reader, we'd at least have the pleasure of feeling superior to the characters when we figure out the answer for ourselves. Unfortunately the book denies us even that by revealing him in the very first chapter as Dr. John Seward, one of the main characters of Bram Stoker's Dracula. No doubt Newman could not resist the temptation to continue Seward's journals from where Stoker's book left off, but without this hook the story badly flounders. All we have to pull us through the story are the many details along the way.
Some of these details are splendid, in particular the way that the book holds a distorted mirror to Victorian England to show the ways that the British Empire was a vampire in itself. There's a lot of cogent criticism of colonialism and various kinds of bigotry. A lot of the writing is deeply atmospheric and the portrayal of this alternate world feels like it goes far beyond the boundaries of the pages.
I'm less sold on the way he uses Dracula's reign as a way to bring all of the other fictional vampires to Britain, as it is now a safe haven for the undead. It's a nice idea, but Newman gets far too caught up in making endless amounts of references. Some parts are reduced to endless lists of the names of various vampires from literature and film, and many of the cameos are clumsy. I was particularly disappointed by the scene where Beauregard is summoned to meet with the crime lords of Victorian England, and we're subjected to an endless scene where Fu Manchu, Professor Moriarty, Bill Sikes, Mack the Knife, Raffles and The Invisible Man each takes a turn to speak. It's gimmicky and annoying, and frankly it's unbelievable that these characters would all see one another as equals.
Where it really works is in the way it invokes Dracula throughout while keeping him at arm's length. He doesn't appear in the majority of the book, but he is felt on almost every page, and when we finally see him it's genuinely disturbing. The end of the book is cracking too.
I'll talk about that ending now, specifically by disagreeing strongly with another reviewer about it.
I feel the need to address another review on here, which specifically bashes the end of the book. The reviewer ridicules the idea that "when you're the most powerful vampire on the planet, you've turned most of England into your undead minions, and you're possessed of a ruthless and barbaric intelligence, you will always--always--bow down before societal customs."
I'm sorry, but was this person paying attention? To begin with, there is no indication in the text that Dracula is "the most powerful vampire on the planet" - rather, the book implies that a vampire's power is predicated on their age, and then specifically presents at least two vampires older than Dracula. Geneviève Dieudonné is fifty years his senior, and the Chinese hopping vampire is assumed to be thousands of years older.
The idea that the succession to the throne is a "societal custom" suggests that it is the equivalent of using the correct fork at dinner, rather than the foundation of the British Empire. As the book points out, the knowledge of Victoria's death spreads quickly and will immediately result in revolt against this supremely unpopular ruler ursurping of the throne.
As for the idea that he has "turned most of England into [his] undead minions," this is patent nonsense. The vast majority of the population are still warm, and many of the vampires in the novel are not Dracula's get. The book states bluntly that Dracula's bloodline is tainted and that most of the vampires in it will have short and unpleasant afterlives. Other vampires throughout are also depicted as being power-hungry and believing themselves to be have a greater claim to the title of King of the Vampires. The idea that they would all fall into line to defend Dracula is ridiculous.
Then there's the thematic relevance. The book constantly talks about the importance of bloodline, both for its literal and metaphorical power. By severing Dracula from the bloodline of Victoria, her power is instantly removed from him. And remember that Dracula is portrayed as being deeply superstitious, to the point that he can be harmed by Christian iconography even though the damage is purely psychosomatic.
Anno Dracula asserts that the structures of power are greater than any individuals within it. As far as I'm concerned, the ending is the best part of the book.
If the identity of the killer was even nominally kept secret from the reader, we'd at least have the pleasure of feeling superior to the characters when we figure out the answer for ourselves. Unfortunately the book denies us even that by revealing him in the very first chapter as Dr. John Seward, one of the main characters of Bram Stoker's Dracula. No doubt Newman could not resist the temptation to continue Seward's journals from where Stoker's book left off, but without this hook the story badly flounders. All we have to pull us through the story are the many details along the way.
Some of these details are splendid, in particular the way that the book holds a distorted mirror to Victorian England to show the ways that the British Empire was a vampire in itself. There's a lot of cogent criticism of colonialism and various kinds of bigotry. A lot of the writing is deeply atmospheric and the portrayal of this alternate world feels like it goes far beyond the boundaries of the pages.
I'm less sold on the way he uses Dracula's reign as a way to bring all of the other fictional vampires to Britain, as it is now a safe haven for the undead. It's a nice idea, but Newman gets far too caught up in making endless amounts of references. Some parts are reduced to endless lists of the names of various vampires from literature and film, and many of the cameos are clumsy. I was particularly disappointed by the scene where Beauregard is summoned to meet with the crime lords of Victorian England, and we're subjected to an endless scene where Fu Manchu, Professor Moriarty, Bill Sikes, Mack the Knife, Raffles and The Invisible Man each takes a turn to speak. It's gimmicky and annoying, and frankly it's unbelievable that these characters would all see one another as equals.
Where it really works is in the way it invokes Dracula throughout while keeping him at arm's length. He doesn't appear in the majority of the book, but he is felt on almost every page, and when we finally see him it's genuinely disturbing. The end of the book is cracking too.
I'll talk about that ending now, specifically by disagreeing strongly with another reviewer about it.
Spoiler
I feel the need to address another review on here, which specifically bashes the end of the book. The reviewer ridicules the idea that "when you're the most powerful vampire on the planet, you've turned most of England into your undead minions, and you're possessed of a ruthless and barbaric intelligence, you will always--always--bow down before societal customs."
I'm sorry, but was this person paying attention? To begin with, there is no indication in the text that Dracula is "the most powerful vampire on the planet" - rather, the book implies that a vampire's power is predicated on their age, and then specifically presents at least two vampires older than Dracula. Geneviève Dieudonné is fifty years his senior, and the Chinese hopping vampire is assumed to be thousands of years older.
The idea that the succession to the throne is a "societal custom" suggests that it is the equivalent of using the correct fork at dinner, rather than the foundation of the British Empire. As the book points out, the knowledge of Victoria's death spreads quickly and will immediately result in revolt against this supremely unpopular ruler ursurping of the throne.
As for the idea that he has "turned most of England into [his] undead minions," this is patent nonsense. The vast majority of the population are still warm, and many of the vampires in the novel are not Dracula's get. The book states bluntly that Dracula's bloodline is tainted and that most of the vampires in it will have short and unpleasant afterlives. Other vampires throughout are also depicted as being power-hungry and believing themselves to be have a greater claim to the title of King of the Vampires. The idea that they would all fall into line to defend Dracula is ridiculous.
Then there's the thematic relevance. The book constantly talks about the importance of bloodline, both for its literal and metaphorical power. By severing Dracula from the bloodline of Victoria, her power is instantly removed from him. And remember that Dracula is portrayed as being deeply superstitious, to the point that he can be harmed by Christian iconography even though the damage is purely psychosomatic.
Anno Dracula asserts that the structures of power are greater than any individuals within it. As far as I'm concerned, the ending is the best part of the book.