Scan barcode
A review by pandothiel
Dracula the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker
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?