-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Sequel to original 'Dracula' is well worth a 112-year wait
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
Eva
Member
I’m almost as obsessed with Dracula as Mina is in this novel. On the day it was released at my local independent bookstore, I bought it and read it in the store, while my housemate made full use of their free wifi and observed that I read with an “appalled” expression.
I didn’t know I read lesbian vampire sexploitation with an appalled look. I assumed it was more “amused.” That’s what this novel is, by the way. It exhumes Elizabeth Bathory, another torturer from history who ends up making dear old Vlad the Impaler look like a wannabe. This is a sequel in the sense that Huck Finn is a sequel: the story picks up again, but brings forward a different character, relegating the star of the first book to a supporting role.
Unlike Huck Finn, however, this sequel doesn’t elevate the story to even greater literature. Everything here is degenerated. The characters certainly are. If you thought the heroes in Dracula were a little too sickeningly heroic, you won’t have that problem this time. They’re all pretty trashy now.
In the original novel, gore is artfully portrayed, and sex is deliciously implied. In this sequel, we're hit over the head with both in 21st-Century obviousness. (No, on second thought, it’s tired, 20th-Century obviousness. And that’s late 20th Century--nobody’s speech in the book reflects the Edwardian Era.) This book is apparently the novelization of a movie in the works. Absolutely nothing in it is original. Even Bathory has been wakened before to be set on unmotivated rampages. This isn’t the sequel to a great classic; it’s the latest product from the vampire industry that has remained undead ever since.
I didn’t know I read lesbian vampire sexploitation with an appalled look. I assumed it was more “amused.” That’s what this novel is, by the way. It exhumes Elizabeth Bathory, another torturer from history who ends up making dear old Vlad the Impaler look like a wannabe. This is a sequel in the sense that Huck Finn is a sequel: the story picks up again, but brings forward a different character, relegating the star of the first book to a supporting role.
Unlike Huck Finn, however, this sequel doesn’t elevate the story to even greater literature. Everything here is degenerated. The characters certainly are. If you thought the heroes in Dracula were a little too sickeningly heroic, you won’t have that problem this time. They’re all pretty trashy now.
In the original novel, gore is artfully portrayed, and sex is deliciously implied. In this sequel, we're hit over the head with both in 21st-Century obviousness. (No, on second thought, it’s tired, 20th-Century obviousness. And that’s late 20th Century--nobody’s speech in the book reflects the Edwardian Era.) This book is apparently the novelization of a movie in the works. Absolutely nothing in it is original. Even Bathory has been wakened before to be set on unmotivated rampages. This isn’t the sequel to a great classic; it’s the latest product from the vampire industry that has remained undead ever since.
The Mythwriter
New Member
I ordered this as soon as I found out about it... I'm suspicious and worried as well, but I have to at least learn firsthand whether it's worthy or not.
Ordinarily, I'm mostly against sequels like this... when the original concluded so well (epically in fact), it doesn't demand a sequel. I doubt I'll read the "new" Hitchhiker's Guide book, since it has little to do with Adams, other than hijacking the franchise.
I'm more hopeful for this, since it's closer to home for the Stokers, based on some material Bram had going, and, less scholarly of me, simply desperate for some legitimate vampire fiction to put a dent in glittery vampire stardom these days. I believe it will never be a true sequel, kind of a illegitimate heir, for lack of a better term, but hopefully still most worthy of addition to a Stoker and/or vampire fan's library. Some comments here have degraded that hope, though... perhaps a foolish hope. But I will still give it the chance...
Ordinarily, I'm mostly against sequels like this... when the original concluded so well (epically in fact), it doesn't demand a sequel. I doubt I'll read the "new" Hitchhiker's Guide book, since it has little to do with Adams, other than hijacking the franchise.
I'm more hopeful for this, since it's closer to home for the Stokers, based on some material Bram had going, and, less scholarly of me, simply desperate for some legitimate vampire fiction to put a dent in glittery vampire stardom these days. I believe it will never be a true sequel, kind of a illegitimate heir, for lack of a better term, but hopefully still most worthy of addition to a Stoker and/or vampire fan's library. Some comments here have degraded that hope, though... perhaps a foolish hope. But I will still give it the chance...
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
How has Dracula's death been a subject of debate?
After reading the author's interview in EW, I want to hide and make warding signs at this book.
After reading the author's interview in EW, I want to hide and make warding signs at this book.
I enjoyed the first book, so I'm looking forward to reading this one. BTW, you can download a free text copy of the first Dracula here: Dracula by Bram Stoker
velocipede2288
New Member
Reading Bram Stoker's Dracula. It has been a long time since I have read this book, but you can't beat it for gothic fantacy.
Don't usually read this kind of book, but it is a classic for a reason. It is very good.
Don't usually read this kind of book, but it is a classic for a reason. It is very good.