Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by mad_about_books
Dracul by J.D. Barker, Dacre Stoker
5.0
Some people read about zombies, others are into ghost stories. Me? I am a long-time fan of the vampire tale. I collected books based the trope until romance writers attempted to co-opt the trope and co-opt it badly. There was a time when my goal was to own every vampire novel and short story ever written. As I got older, I revised my expectations.
Let's imagine word association between you and me. I say "Bram Stoker." You reply with "Dracula." I say :Dracula." You reply with "vampire." These would be instantaneous responses because you have read the book, seen a stage play, or watched a movie starring the infamous vampire. Although DRACULA is not the first novel written about the undead, it is probably the most recognized by the general public. The definitive story is contained in the novel. The movies and stage plays take liberties to meet time and space constraints. They also add bits to Bram Stoker's original vampire mythos.
DRACUL is more a biography of Bram Stoker, more of a history of his family, than it is a re-writing of DRACULA. Even a cursory Google search of 'Bram Stoker' will confirm that he did indeed have a brother Thornley and a sister Mathilda (although that was her middle, not first, name).
Vampire tales have rules, a mythos to which authors must, at least loosely, adhere. The only way to kill a vampire is with a stake through the heart. Vampires cannot live in sunlight. Vampires must sleep on their native earth. All of these ideas are subject to change as you read the works of different authors. The mythos of the vampire is a fascination of mine. I look for variations with each new book, each new author, each new series about the blood-drinking undead. DRACUL does not disappoint. The things the undead can do in this book vary just enough from the original novel to make it quite unique. Written in the form of journal entries made by some of the characters, and letters by another, it harkens back to DRACULA whose tale is told through the journal entries of Jonathan Harker. In both cases, we are led to believe that as far-fetched as it may seem, the stories are completely true. This truth lies in the conviction each journal exhibits.
For this serious collector of vampire tales, this book is a must. For anyone who has read DRACULA, DRACUL provides insight into the mind of Bram Stoker. Yes, I know that both books are fiction, that vampires are not real, but to suspend disbelief affords a glimpse of what might be.
On the downside (a very small downside), I will say that there is a word or two, here and there in DRACUL, that is too modern. Today's reader might not even notice these literary faux pas, but, when such care has been given the overall work, to me they stood out like beacons.
Let's imagine word association between you and me. I say "Bram Stoker." You reply with "Dracula." I say :Dracula." You reply with "vampire." These would be instantaneous responses because you have read the book, seen a stage play, or watched a movie starring the infamous vampire. Although DRACULA is not the first novel written about the undead, it is probably the most recognized by the general public. The definitive story is contained in the novel. The movies and stage plays take liberties to meet time and space constraints. They also add bits to Bram Stoker's original vampire mythos.
DRACUL is more a biography of Bram Stoker, more of a history of his family, than it is a re-writing of DRACULA. Even a cursory Google search of 'Bram Stoker' will confirm that he did indeed have a brother Thornley and a sister Mathilda (although that was her middle, not first, name).
Vampire tales have rules, a mythos to which authors must, at least loosely, adhere. The only way to kill a vampire is with a stake through the heart. Vampires cannot live in sunlight. Vampires must sleep on their native earth. All of these ideas are subject to change as you read the works of different authors. The mythos of the vampire is a fascination of mine. I look for variations with each new book, each new author, each new series about the blood-drinking undead. DRACUL does not disappoint. The things the undead can do in this book vary just enough from the original novel to make it quite unique. Written in the form of journal entries made by some of the characters, and letters by another, it harkens back to DRACULA whose tale is told through the journal entries of Jonathan Harker. In both cases, we are led to believe that as far-fetched as it may seem, the stories are completely true. This truth lies in the conviction each journal exhibits.
For this serious collector of vampire tales, this book is a must. For anyone who has read DRACULA, DRACUL provides insight into the mind of Bram Stoker. Yes, I know that both books are fiction, that vampires are not real, but to suspend disbelief affords a glimpse of what might be.
On the downside (a very small downside), I will say that there is a word or two, here and there in DRACUL, that is too modern. Today's reader might not even notice these literary faux pas, but, when such care has been given the overall work, to me they stood out like beacons.