Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Dracula the Un-Dead

3.05 of 5 stars 3.05 · rating details · 2,391 ratings · 544 reviews

At last—the sequel to Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula, written by his direct descendant and a Dracula historian

Bram Stoker's Dracula is the prototypical horror novel, an inspiration for the world's seemingly limitless fascination with vampires. Though many have tried to replicate Stoker's horror classic—in books, television shows, and movies—only the 1931 Bela Lugosi...more

Hardcover, 424 pages

Published October 13th 2009 by Dutton (first published January 1st 2009)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Best Adult Vampire Books

150th out of 960 books — 5,744 voters

Most Over Hyped and Annoying Books Ever

80th out of 283 books — 513 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Sep 16, 2009 Roberta rated it 2 of 5 stars

I met Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt at BookExpo and got an autographed ARC copy of this book for free. That's the good news -- I got it for free. I liked Dacre Stoker (notice how I didn't mention Ian Holt...) and I wanted to like his book but I was disappointed. I was hoping for more Dracula and less Elizabeth Bathory and Jack the Ripper. Actually, there were about 400 characters in the book and the game of recognizing them started distracting me from the plot. Besides for characters from the origin...more

11 likes · like · see review

Sep 30, 2011 Cathrine Bonham rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: No one

This book was horrible. If you have ever read the classic novel "Dracula" by Bram Stoker DO NOT READ THIS. It took me forever to read because I kept getting mad at it. I only finished it so that I could write this review with a clear conscience. This is nothing but one really long Fan Fiction written by Ian Holt and endorsed by Dacre Stoker.

First of all it can not be a sequal to the Classic novel if you rewrite the events of the Classic novel. They don't even follow the format established in "Dr...more

20 likes · like · see review

Mar 11, 2010 Margaret rated it 1 of 5 stars

Is there a way to give negative stars?

Against my better judgement and despite my ingrained wariness of “sequels” to classic novels, I ill-advisedly started Dracula The Undead in the optimistic hope that the author’s relationship to Bram Stoker might have inspired him to actually write something more or less worthy, as opposed to just exploiting his illustrious family connection for some quick cash.

Guess how that turned out.

This acorn has fallen so far from the tree that it can’t even see the f...more Is there a way to give negative stars?

Against my better judgement and despite my ingrained wariness of “sequels” to classic novels, I ill-advisedly started Dracula The Undead in the optimistic hope that the author’s relationship to Bram Stoker might have inspired him to actually write something more or less worthy, as opposed to just exploiting his illustrious family connection for some quick cash.

Guess how that turned out.

This acorn has fallen so far from the tree that it can’t even see the forest. Apart from the usual problem of sequels, that really no one wants to re-encounter great grand-uncle Bram’s fearless band of vampire slaying heroes in middle age when they’ve all become drunks, drug addicts and failures at parenting, the plotting is prosaic, the writing by turns lead-footed and ham-handed (though it’s impossible to tell which appendages belong to Dacre Stoker and which to his so-called “co-writer” Ian Holt), and – possibly worst of all -, the authors keep Dracula himself, one of the more compelling characters in literature, offstage until the last 40 pages or so, as if they know they can’t handle him for very long. Prior to that, our primary villain is Countess Elizabeth Bathory, an early Dracula bride (so we’re told) who in addition to being a vampire is also a Lesbian – one of the ways, the authors offensively indicate, in which she has turned her back on God, in addition to her propensity for bathing in the blood of slaughtered peasant girls. I prefer my vampire fiction without a political/religious agenda, thank you so much.

About a third of the book is a boringly written rehash of Stoker’s original, via flashbacks, memories, and Francis Ford Coppola’s movie version (just in case anyone is actually reading the sequel without knowing what happens in the first one) and the freshly minted part of the novel is an even more boring succession of clashes between men and vampires, although their boringness may be a perverse kind of achievement given how much graphic violence these scenes contain. Bram Stoker wasn’t Henry Irving’s general manager at the Lyceum for 27 years for nothing, and while he may not be one of the great stylists of all time, he understood how to work an audience - how to build suspense and sexual tension (yes, even in the 19th century) and how to manipulate their imagination for maximum effect. His talent-free descendant apparently thinks it’s sufficient to announce roughly every page and a half that someone or other is in “grave danger,” and then follow that up with one of the aforementioned scenes of stomach-turning carnage, which for all their lurid detail are curiously unaffecting.

DRACULA THE UNDEAD is an Unsatisfying Unbook. I’d like my time, and my Dracula, back, please.
(less)

34 likes · like · see review

Mar 21, 2013 Troy rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

When I read the last page and closed the book I had mixed emotions. First, relief that it was over. Second, sadness at the thought that my memory of the wonderful piece of literature that is "Dracula" will always be soiled by this book. Third, anger that Dacre Stoker made money off this book.
This book is a slap in the face to Bram Stoker and literature. The authors jumped on the bandwagon of Vampire mania by publishing amidst the frenzy of vampire novels. It is as if the two of them sat down, wa...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 17, 2009 Richard added it

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

8 likes · like · see review

Mar 30, 2013 Cyndie rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: fiction

I loved this book. I did not go into the book expecting to be gripped by the literary writing style of Bram Stoker and perhaps that is why I was able to enjoy the book. If you want the classic, then go read the classic. Dracula the Un-Dead is a strong book that stands on its own.

Having just read Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I was eager to learn what had become of the beloved characters. To be completely honest I was disappointed by the hum drum ‘they all lived happily ever after’ ending of the origina...more

1 like · like · see review

May 19, 2010 Donald rated it 3 of 5 stars

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This is an interesting book. I like the idea of finding out what happened to the surviving characters of the original classic twenty-five years later. The portrayals of them are quite good and reasonable to expect that this is what they're doing or have gone through since "Dracula." It's mostly well-written, except for a few turns of phrase that could have been better here and there.

What is disconcerting is the handling of the original book within the sequel. The title says it all, or should: "D...more This is an interesting book. I like the idea of finding out what happened to the surviving characters of the original classic twenty-five years later. The portrayals of them are quite good and reasonable to expect that this is what they're doing or have gone through since "Dracula." It's mostly well-written, except for a few turns of phrase that could have been better here and there.

What is disconcerting is the handling of the original book within the sequel. The title says it all, or should: "Dracula the Un-dead: The Sequel to the Original Classic." Well, that's intriguing, but then they take so many liberties and change so many little details of the original to ask the question, why write it at all, or why call it a sequel to the original classic? A more apt description would be "the sequel based on the original classic." It's a bit of revisionist history going on, changing dates and such, as well reading a bit too much into vague lines in the original and then running with that in a new direction. They say it's a sequel, but then in the text of their book, they say the original was not accurate and was the rantings of a drug-addict. This, apparently, allows them the opportunity to take what they want and like from the original and throw away or discount what they don't want or like to fit their story. It's an interesting tale and well-woven to get everything in there, but in doing so, they've changed the character of Dracula himself.

Dracula has now been made into a romantic anti-hero. That's not what he was! They've merged the historical Vlad Tsepes with the Dracula character (finally, as the authors say in an extended author's note explaining everything they've done, which is not a good sign in my opinion; if you have to explain why and what you just spent a few hundred pages writing about, you haven't done a good job in the writing!), which is the wrong thing to do. Leave Dracula as he was, a perhaps tragic figure, yes, but one who is un-apologetically a bad guy. Also, come up with a more original ending/denouement for Quincy and his relationship to Dracula. It smacked too much of "The Empire Strikes Back."
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 12, 2011 Petra rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Update. Finished listening to this tale about "the band of heroes" (a phrase heard endlessly over the course of this story). UGH!
Suffise to stay: give this book a miss. You won't be sorry. Everything you liked in Dracula will be missing from these pages. Just the opposite. Where Bram Stoker used words to mount tension, adventure and mystery, Dacre Stoker fills his pages with whiney, pale characters and lots of violence. And blood.
Run!

OMG the melodrama! Really, I don't see a high rating for this...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jul 11, 2012 Preston rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Not a soul

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I want to say that this book was a complete and utter disappointment. It is worse than that! Its Horrible! A SEQUEL TO THE ORIGINAL!!! That it is not! This book was painful to read. I knew going into it, with all the reviews I had read, what I was facing . It seems to me that this book was written out of spite and greed! Bram Stoker is rolling in his grave. I would not recommend this book to anyone. Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt did not need the help of their Villains to destroy Bram Stoker or his c...more I want to say that this book was a complete and utter disappointment. It is worse than that! Its Horrible! A SEQUEL TO THE ORIGINAL!!! That it is not! This book was painful to read. I knew going into it, with all the reviews I had read, what I was facing . It seems to me that this book was written out of spite and greed! Bram Stoker is rolling in his grave. I would not recommend this book to anyone. Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt did not need the help of their Villains to destroy Bram Stoker or his characters. They did just fine on their own.

Let me save you the time, trouble and agony of reading this garbage. The books title is "Dracula: The Un-Dead." Though his name is mentioned thought out the book Dracula (Basarab) plays only a minor character until the very end. Mr. Holt and Stoker took extensive liberties in modifying and perverting the world and characters Bram Stoker created. Jack Seward is a Morphine addict who has lost everything his wife, daughter and career. He is a shell of his former self. After 25 years and a previous marriage behind him he still obsesses over Lucy. All in all Countess Bathory shows up proclaims her hatred towards God and all mankind as she will continue to do throughout the entire book. Bathory is an over the top hedonistic feminist. Her extreme lust for blood and the companionship of woman is complimentary to her mythos, but was handled poorly in this book. She proceeds to kill off Stokers characters one by one giving the appearance that Dracula has returned. It gets complicated. A Jack the ripper sub-plot is introduced as well as a host of unnecessary characters. Bathorie’s bloody body count of whores is attributed to Jack the Ripper. An Inspector Cotford believes that a 75 year old Van Helsing and his miscreants are behind the murders and are acting as one, Jack the Ripper. This does not add to the story at all, in fact it makes it more complicated and frustrating.

Johnathan Harker is resentful of Mina because she slept with Dracula (where was that in the original). Mina is a closet feminist who wants to break free of male oppression, but doesn’t want to hurt poor Jonathan's feelings. Out of duty she remains a dutiful wife. Mina keeps stating that she wishes Johnathan would have pleased her like Dracula did. She muses on how Dracula was a Sexual Dynamo and Jonathon just couldn’t compare and she was found left wanting.

Quincey Harker the son of......well its complicated. Hates his father for being to controlling and his mother for being Dracula’s play thing, this is also repeated over and over by the whiny character Quincey. Quincey developes a mutual relationship with the great actor Basarab. Later Quincey and Basarab would play a vital roll in ruining Bram Stoker and his theater in London. Yes they did, they made Bram Stoker a fictional character in their novel. Jonathan is impaled on a stake in Piccadilly Square. It must have been Dracula because he had impale people in the past. Bathory again was behind this.

Arthur Holmwood has a short part to play in the story but it is tedious, like Seward it is all about Lucy.

Van Helsing is confronted by Inspector Cotford and accused of being Jack the Ripper. Van Helsing gets bit by Dracula after a scuffle in his hotel room and is now a vampire. Van Helsing is made out to be as much as villain in this book as Dracula was in the original. It is sad. Arthur Holmwood and Quincey fight with Vampire Van Helsing. Quincey is subdued while Arthur finishes off Van Helsing and they plummet to their deaths onto the pavement below.

Towards the end of the book Dracula comes out of hiding. During the events of the book Dracula was Basarab the great Transylvanian actor (give me a break, this wasn't hard to figure out). Again another dynamic character Bram stoker created, whittled down to a weak pathetic creature....oh sorry human being.....he mustn’t be a monster anymore we need to redeem our Villian from Hell. Dracula is no longer a enigmatic demon from the depths of hell but a misguided and misunderstood being that only wanted to love Mina. His image as a villain was an illusion created by Van Helsing. Van Helsing created monsters and murders and liars out of our band of heros (sickening isn’t it).

At one point Bathory transforms into a flying gargoyle and goes on a killing spree, Inspector Cotford being one of many victims is decapitated by her razor studded tail before he could reveal the real Jack the Ripper (“Bathory”). Mina discoverers she has super human powers due to being bitten by Dracula and Bathory. Her and Dracula fight Bathory. Dracula and Bathory have a gruesome fight ending with Dracula bleeding to death and Mina kicking Bathory out of the subway car. Bathory Falling on the electrical tracks and bursting into flames. Is this the end of Bathory...So much for hoping. Bathory not only flies out of the subway tunnel, but to Paris, France to get the dagger she killed Dracula with in the modified back story... Oops did I leave that out. It wasn’t Jonathan Harker and Quincy P Morris that Killed Dracula...Dracula transformed into dust to fool the Heros into thinking they killed him. When he reappeared in some dilapidated cathedral on the castle grounds, Bathory finished the job. Her motives for killing Dracula are vague and confusing . You see the original ending wasn’t good enough for Mr. Holt and Stoker they had to undo and bastardize what Bram Stoker had already written, of course they try to explain there reasoning in the afterwords but fail to justify the changes.

Towards the end of the book Mina and Dracula steal a car and drive to Carfax Abby. After settling in Mina succumbs to Dracula’s sexual magnetism and lets him have his way with her including making her a vampire. Quincey Harker having had a telepathic link with his mother is drawn to Carfax Abbey (Which never existed in Whitby or was an Abbey). Bathory having returned from Paris with the weapon that killed Dracula once upon a time was on her way to the abbey as well. Quincey enters the abbey finds his vampire mother, she tries to convince Quincey into joining their cause but Quincey refuses and runs out of the abbey. Outside Dracula and Bathory are in the heat of Battle. After a lengthy brawl both Dracula and Bathory fall to the ground in a draw. At this point the sun is rising in the sky, Mina had chased after Quincey. Bathory and Dracula burst into flames. Quincey out of some sort of twisted pity runs to Dracula in time for Dracula to tell Quincey “I AM YOUR FATHER.” Quincey in disbelief rebukes Dracula, ignoring his mothers screams and runs away. Dracula dives off the Whitby cliffs in flames into the water below (Maybe the water put out the flames and he survived). Fireball Mina follows after, over the edge and into the ocean. The last few pages of the book describe Quincy as a ragged vagabond getting on a large ship destined for New York. Also being loaded into the cargo hold is Dracula’s Crate. The Ship that they are on is none other than the Titanic. I can see it now Rose and Drac. Dracula “I’M THE KING OF THE WORLD!”. Rose somberly “Never let go...Drac...Never let go.” THE END.

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 22, 2010 Courtney rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: books-that-should-have-never-been-p

When my dad told me that there was going to be a sequel to Dracula coming out and it was written by the great grand-nephew of Bram Stoker I got excited. I could not wait to get my hands on Dracula Un-Dead. I was hoping that it would end the modernized verison of vampires that Stephanie Meyer created. But I was wrong.

I am going to first say that I am glad that I did not buy this book, instead I found it while I was looking through the shelves at the library for a good read. With eagerness I snat...more When my dad told me that there was going to be a sequel to Dracula coming out and it was written by the great grand-nephew of Bram Stoker I got excited. I could not wait to get my hands on Dracula Un-Dead. I was hoping that it would end the modernized verison of vampires that Stephanie Meyer created. But I was wrong.

I am going to first say that I am glad that I did not buy this book, instead I found it while I was looking through the shelves at the library for a good read. With eagerness I snatched the book off the shelf like someone was going to snatch it before I could. (yes I was that excited to read it). When I got home from the library I headed straight to the area where I spend most of my days reading and never said anything to anybody.

When my dad came to check on me to make sure I was still living I was trying to get over the fact that the writers used Bram Stoker as a character. I was not too thrilled by that fact and I am sure Bram Stoker wouldn't be either.

Some parts felt like it was a sequel to the original and other parts felt like it was a sequel to the 1992 film adaption 'Bram Stokers Dracual'. I really feel like Dracula The Un-Dead does not deserve to 'The Sequel to the Original Classic' underneath the title. It should say, 'Based off the Original Classic'.

I have to be honest I have yet to finish this book and I am not sure if I can. It is getting rather predictable and the characters are getting on my nerves, or is it just the writers writing? Dacre is not a horrible writer, but it feels like I should be reading a movie script, not a novel. There are moments were the lack of details makes reading this novel boring and some details are well written that I can feel my heart beating out of my chest.

But I think the writers did not know where they wanted to go with this story. There are a few times where I found myself saying, "what?" aloud and I have to go back and reread that one part only to find out it felt completely randomly placed. And why in the world is Barrymore in this story? I was thrown off for a bit with that and also Oscar Wilde being mentioned.

As for the characters I was not happy with what they did to Van Helsing. Seward, I can picture him becoming an addict and spending the rest of his life chasing vampires. I also did not like what they did to Mina and Johnathon. Why would Mina fall in love with Dracula? The fact that she kept calling him her 'Dark Prince' got under my skin each time. Johnathon would never go around with prositutes and be an alcholic. Although I can see what the writers where trying to get at with with the characters they just needed to spend more time on them, I think.

I am going to leave this review as it is, I have much to say about this book. I could spend hours pointing out the flaws and butcher the book to pieces, but it as all been said before on here. I have read many reviews where I agree with fans of the original Dracuala and they said it all: Dracula The Un-Dead is a disappointment. (less)

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 19, 2010 Sam rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: horror

This book pained me, when I first spotted it in my local bookstore I got somewhat excited at the prospect of a sequel to my beloved Dracula and written by a descendent of Bram himself so I had some high expectations. But then I started reading it and things went a bit wrong from there. To be fair to the book I'm going to review it in two ways, the first as a story in it's own right and the second as a sequel to Dracula.

As a stand alone story (that has obvious nicked a lot of the characters from...more This book pained me, when I first spotted it in my local bookstore I got somewhat excited at the prospect of a sequel to my beloved Dracula and written by a descendent of Bram himself so I had some high expectations. But then I started reading it and things went a bit wrong from there. To be fair to the book I'm going to review it in two ways, the first as a story in it's own right and the second as a sequel to Dracula.

As a stand alone story (that has obvious nicked a lot of the characters from elsewhere) it wasn't too bad. Stoker and Holt have used a lot of the common and well known associations of the vampire story, including the Vlad III (the Impaler) and Elizabeth Bathory links. The authors have managed to produce a fairly readable and enjoyable story that is fast paced and quite entertaining (as long as you look past the cliches and occasional predictable bit and the all too frequent name dropping) although it doesn't provide anything new to the vampire genre.

The problem with this book is that it has based itself and used the characters from one the most well read and well loved gothic horror books and it has not done it justice. Rather than continuing with the subtle creeping horror and elegant style that dominates the original novel Stoker and Holt have opted for a more in your face, over the top gore-fest that has since dominated the maintstream adaptations of the original. Why they did this I do not know. They have also taken each of the main characters of the original and completely turned them on their heads, turning Seward into a wrecked morphine addict, Holmwood into a suicidal depressive, Harker into a drunk, Mina into a depressed housewife and Van Helsing into a crazed Dutchman, none of which sits too well I must say. Not only this they have tried to change Dracula into a dark romantic hero rather than the wretched monster that (Bram) Stoker was aiming for.

Their worse crime though is the fact that they have changed the dates of the original story from 1898 to 1888 and extended the time that Dracula spent in England all so they could squeeze in links to the Jack the Ripper cases (again why I do not know) and why they thought that this would be a good idea is beyond me. And let us not forget the ending with Dracula and Bathory battling it out, ye olde style, with swords (unlikely) and the big finale (which I'll not spoil for you) that was obvious from start.

Overall this is a bit of a mish-mash of vampire lore that tries desparatley to be something more than it is through the author's family ties, unfortunetly it fails. Enjoy it not as a sequel (as which it is very frustrating and aggrevating) but as a quick vampire read. I bet Bram is turning in his grave at this one...or trying to get out for a quick family reunion.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

May 13, 2011 Steven rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Quite a disappointment. I had high hopes for this book. It has a good premise. It had promising authors. But the authors just missed the boat all around. They start by making all the heroes into dysfunctional, soap-opera like caricatures. Then they kill off most of them. Then they take what I consider to be unsupportable liberties with the original source material (i.e., they change crucial details of the book they are purporting to write a sequel for). And then they throw in the most shocking,...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 06, 2013 Jordon rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Mar 17, 2013 Sariah rated it 2 of 5 stars

spoiler spoiler spoiler

As a HUGE fan of the original novel I was very nervous about this book. Reading it pretty much confirmed my general belief that prequels or sequels should NEVER be written by someone other than the original author.

First of all, they make Dracula out to be the good guy, explaining away the original novel as just a huge misunderstanding.

They demean and literally slaughter all of the original heroes by the time the book ends.

Did you know that Mina secretly loved Dracula all...more

like · see review

Jan 05, 2013 C.p. Bialois rated it 5 of 5 stars

First, let me say I’m a huge fan of the original Dracula by Bram Stoker and given the way it ended, there was an opening left for a sequel. The unanswered question is did Stoke intend for that to happen or was it an accident. Since no one can answer that, his great grand nephew Dacre Stoke and Dracula historian Ian Holt combined the notes Stoker left behind and added their own ideas.

First and foremost, Dracula the Un-Dead is written in third person which, for me, added so much more to the story...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 30, 2012 David rated it 1 of 5 stars

A badly written,badly researched non-sequel. Holt threw in everything he could to thrill the horror tastes of younger readers in 2012. He did this with no respect for the original, which he largely ignored in favour of 20th century movies, vampire trends and research books on Vlad the Impaler (which only sold because they cashed in on Bram's original book "Dracula" which had nothind to do with Vlad.Holt is merely an opportunist,Dacre a sell-out whose only contribution was his family name which H...more

1 like · like · see review

May 05, 2012 Robert rated it 1 of 5 stars

There were a lot of high hopes for this book. A sequel to Dracula written by a Stoker. It had all the makings of a hit novel but Dacre Stoker (grand-nephew of Bram) couldn't live up this his great uncle. In fact Bram makes an appearance in this sequel as a bitter old man. Really? First of all the prologue starts with a letter from Mina, so I was expecting it to be like the original novel told in letters and journal entries but no - the rest of the novel was in a traditional narrative. What was w...more

like · see review

Mar 16, 2012 David rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: horror, novels

I had high expectations for this book that claims to be the "official" sequel of one of my favorite books of all time. The original Dracula was one of the first books that after a certain point I just couldn't put down and had to continue reading until I finished. This book not only does not do justice to the original but in my humble opinion takes a story we value highly and characters we have come to love, makes a mockery out of the characters and plot, spits on it, and then destroys whatever...more

like · see review

Mar 09, 2012 Jim rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: horror-and-supernatural, audio, mmm-2012, jims-reviews

Not sure how to talk about this (audio)book. It kept me coming back because I was interested in the characters enough to want to know what happened. But the writing was very trying at times.

The whole book smacks of multiple authors writing multiple parts.

Sections of the book seem to be held together only by cliches.

"She had such a lust for life."
"Her smile could warm the coldest heart."
"He was a shadow of his former self."
"He was a shadow of his former self."
(I typed that twice because it is use...more

like · see review

Jan 01, 2012 Jeannette rated it 2 of 5 stars

Bear with me because this is going to be a rabbling review. I picked this book up when I saw that it was co-written by a Stoker. I guess I fell for that marketing ploy because in the end it was VERY disappointing. I think the first part had potential and it was fun to try to piece together the puzzle as it went. But here are my major issues with the book.
1) the use of Countess Bathory could have been interesting but it fell flat. For someone so hell-bent on revenge and bringing the world to an e...more Bear with me because this is going to be a rabbling review. I picked this book up when I saw that it was co-written by a Stoker. I guess I fell for that marketing ploy because in the end it was VERY disappointing. I think the first part had potential and it was fun to try to piece together the puzzle as it went. But here are my major issues with the book.
1) the use of Countess Bathory could have been interesting but it fell flat. For someone so hell-bent on revenge and bringing the world to an end, I feel like her motivation was lacking. I don't know if they were trying to go for the 'being wronged by society' but it was weak and then kinda of turned into a cheap ploy to be provocative.
2) I feel like they totally changed the character of Dracula. Yes I know that a character as reimagined as him, people will fall on either side of certain POVs but I couldn't get passed the idea of him still seeing himself as god's champion. Yes, the historical Drac may have started out that way but doesn't his whole denial and hatred toward god what gets him in trouble in the first place (ie making him cursed to be dead but not dead)? What I find interesting is that for all the backtracking this book makes they never bother to mention how Dracula was first made a vampire. Kind of important don't you think? So not only is this new Drac a soldier of god but he also feels bad about having to kill people...gee, where have I heard that before? Add to that that the formerly intelligent, charming and calculating Drac is changed into a rather dense, overly arrogant, not-good-at-fighting Drac and you really lose the desire to care what happens.
3) Why do books insist on connecting historical events with random plots? The brains of this book decide to link it up with Jack the Ripper...but of course. What I find interesting is that in doing this they totally ignore the timeline the Bram Stoker followed in the original. Gee, what better way to pay homage to the book than to bulldoze right over it? The authors even admit to moving the dates around to fit their plot. I mean, the absolute gall....And in shoving a connection to Jack the Ripper they not only totally change the character of Dracula but also the entire plot of the original. And I won't even get into the absolute ridiculousness of it ending with characters boarding the Titanic...[for the love of pete]

After reading this book I can't help but think that poor Bram would be spinning in his grave once he heard about this. It's pretty bad when the authors have to give explanations for their decisions at the back of the book. "why add Jack the Ripper?" "well Bram once made a passing reference to the Ripper crimes and public memory so of course he wanted us to connect the two." WOW....
What is even more sad is that they left it open to a sequel...perish the thought. You fooled me once into buying a crap vampire book because the name Stoker was on it...it won't happen again. (less)

like · see review

Oct 19, 2011 Robyn rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: interesting-fiction

Don't expect more than a cheap thriller. I much prefered Bram Stoker's first novel to this sequel written by a great-nephew. I like reading introductions, and was surprised to read about how little the famous book with millions of reprints and media representations enriched the Stoker family.
This book was gory, and the writing style was not as sophisticated as I wanted. I feel like some of the fun of Dracula is the romance, mystery and insinuation. I remember being horrified and unable to sleep...more

like · see review

Jul 28, 2011 Steve Cran added it

Twenty five years after his supposed demise in Transylvania , Count Dracula is still alive, or so it seems. Before the story starts the reader is invited to read a letter written by Mina Harker to her son Quincey Harker telling her of the past and how it sill haunt them.

Jack Seward a once famous scientist is on the trail of another vampire in France. Her name is Elizabeth Bathory He espies her in her house killing young women and then bathing in their blood. Later he catches up with her in Paris...more

like · see review

Mar 08, 2011 Deborah Ideiosepius rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: travestys

I found this an appallingly bad book and despite being a fast reader, resorting to a lot of skim reading I have so far been unable to make it past page 64 or the end of chapter nine. There are almost limitless cringe-worthy points in these first chapters and while I may pick the book up again one day I am not betting that I will be feeling that masochistic anytime soon.

Regarding the authors; I see Dacre Stoker is a descendent of Bram Stoker and is not himself an author. My guess is that someone...more I found this an appallingly bad book and despite being a fast reader, resorting to a lot of skim reading I have so far been unable to make it past page 64 or the end of chapter nine. There are almost limitless cringe-worthy points in these first chapters and while I may pick the book up again one day I am not betting that I will be feeling that masochistic anytime soon.

Regarding the authors; I see Dacre Stoker is a descendent of Bram Stoker and is not himself an author. My guess is that someone paid him to have his name on the cover to boost sales. Ian Holt is supposed to be a Dracula expert according to IMDB but I am not seeing any memorable list of novels. Our authors may have the Stoker DNA on their side but they do not have the talent.

There is a strong effort to mimic the subtle contemplative (or if you must, gothic) style in the original Dracula. This effort fails on all counts, and instead comes across as clumsy and modern-trying-too hard with a significant failure to do homework;

“Mina .. pulled on a matronly floor-length dress” [pg. 61] Hang on – 1912 right? do these two authors not have access to google? Can they not have a look at respectable dress lengths in those days? Puh-lese.

I can put up with the evil vampire baroness going to the theatre dressed as a man (though it is unlikely that a woman dressed that way in that era would have been admitted) because they are trying (badly) to make a point.

However: “...he took a deep breath and hauled himself up onto the lowest branch.” [pg 13] Except that it is a palm tree. Palm trees do not have branches, they have fronds and a grown man would not be able to ‘haul himself up’ onto one. I am guessing our intrepid authors have never holidayed in the tropics and we have already established their limited access to google.

Now getting back to the evil Baroness – the young maiden married off against her will! To a nasty older husband! Causing her to become a lesbian! Warped and evil!

Really? Again?

This is a pretty overworked theme and you need to be a smoking hot wordsmith to use it with any credibility these days, in this book it is just lame andtedious.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 21, 2010 Mike Musto rated it 1 of 5 stars

Billed as the "only true sequel" to the original Bram Stoker novel, it is so filled with changes from the original that it doesn't even deserve to be called a sequel. In the Authors' Notes in the back of the book the writers Use the excuse that present day vampire movie enthusiasts would not accept some of the original legend that was changed for the screen and so, rather than write directed at those who read books they decided to change the entire story in order to satisfy movie goers who, well...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 02, 2010 Paul Genesse rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Dracula: The Undead

By Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt

When I saw news about this book, Dracula, The Undead online, I knew I had to read it. The line on the book cover was: He returns . . .

What?! Dracula wasn't dead and he's coming back? I was into it. Great marketing on the publisher's part. This book is a direct sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula and a member of the Stoker family was part of the writing process (more on that later).

Let me say, I'm a huge Dracula fan. I loved the novel by Bram Stoker, and...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 16, 2010 Keri rated it 2 of 5 stars

I wanted to like this book. Oh, you have no idea how badly I wanted to like this book. And I do, sort of, kind of, in a funny way.

I think I would like it if it was a movie and all the names were changed. Because that's what it read like: a movie. I could see each scene in my mind, the dramatic moments, the cinematic special effects... But to me, that wasn't what the original Dracula was about to me.

The characters, the original Band of Heroes, have fallen onto hard times. This is completely under...more I wanted to like this book. Oh, you have no idea how badly I wanted to like this book. And I do, sort of, kind of, in a funny way.

I think I would like it if it was a movie and all the names were changed. Because that's what it read like: a movie. I could see each scene in my mind, the dramatic moments, the cinematic special effects... But to me, that wasn't what the original Dracula was about to me.

The characters, the original Band of Heroes, have fallen onto hard times. This is completely understandable; they went and fought a monster that shouldn't exist and had to kill a dearly beloved friend. I can see how the authors decided to make certain characters have certain vices. But some of them seemed to have just changed fundamentally. I don't like what they did with Mina (but then again, after reading the original novel, I didn't think there was that separate romantic interest there. Coppola's movie was the first time I saw that and I did a double-take). Or with her husband, Jonathan.

I think the biggest insult was what they did to Van Helsing and Dracula himself. I could never see the expert vampire hunter succumbing to what he did. It just doesn't seem right, the way his story ended. I would have rather him have a heart attack.

And I believe I read it in a review here, they did Twilight-ify Count/Prince Dracula. The impression I got of him in the original novel was completely overturned for this dramatic antihero who really never meant to do any harm that wasn't justified. He lost everything about him that made him effectively scary and it was replaced with something I could see girls swooning over (I rather liked swooning over the dark scary one, thanks ;)). And if his origins were supposed to be secret, then the authors failed. As well as their big "shocking secret" at the end.

I found the book was just without the subtle and gothic-y horror that made Dracula so famous. It took it down an action-packed, romantic, hyped up novel that really, to me, reads like it was written to go straight into film, sometimes being too sparse. It's not that it wasn't worth reading - I did finish in a day - but it was not what I think I expected (nor what a lot of Dracula-fans did).(less)

3 likes · like · see review

May 12, 2010 Paula rated it 3 of 5 stars

Following on from the events of ‘Dracula’ by Bram Stoker, ‘Dracula: The Undead’ begins with a letter from Mina Harker to her son, Quincey Harker (named after Quincey P Morris, the man who died trying to stop Dracula), in the letter she tells him everything from her past and what perils may await her son.

I enjoyed ‘Dracula: The Undead’ to a point, its obvious that a substantial amount of work went into creating the story but unfortunately to me, it seemed that certain characters lacked personalit...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 01, 2010 Tracy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: horror

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Wow.

I've read a lot of bad Dracula "sequels" and crossovers, but this is not one of them.

First, I love how Stoker kind of pays homage to his great granduncle by using the same technique for the book: Taking a horrifyingly evil historical character and making a vampire out of her. Elizabeth Bathory is the PERFECT candidate for this.

I was always bothered not so much by the fact that Dracula was evil, but that when he's presented as being Prince Vlad, a man who gave up a hell of a lot for his count...more

like · see review

Jan 04, 2010 Sandy Lender rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: vampire fans, horror fans, movie fans

I will begin this review by saying many people have played with the vampire milieu over the decades with varying degrees of success—giving their own parameters to the vampire worlds they create. I consider Bram Stoker a master of horror and fantasy, and appreciate the rules he set for his vampires. If someone wants to make changes to B. Stoker’s world and rules, it sure better be someone in the Stoker family who has what I consider the right to mess with his or her patriarch’s ideas.

Guess what.

D...more I will begin this review by saying many people have played with the vampire milieu over the decades with varying degrees of success—giving their own parameters to the vampire worlds they create. I consider Bram Stoker a master of horror and fantasy, and appreciate the rules he set for his vampires. If someone wants to make changes to B. Stoker’s world and rules, it sure better be someone in the Stoker family who has what I consider the right to mess with his or her patriarch’s ideas.

Guess what.

Dacre Stoker, the great-grandnephew of B. Stoker teamed up with a screenwriter, Ian Holt (more on Holt’s probable literary influence in a moment), to write a sequel to Dracula that begins with a depressing Nietzschean truth: you must be careful not to become the monster you fight. When the band of heroes that included Mina and Jonathan Harker, Jack Seward, Arthur Holmwood, and Professor Van Helsing, battled the original Count Dracula 25 years before this novel’s opening, they became tainted in ways easy enough for a reader to accept. Jonathan became a raging alcoholic philanderer through his disappointment in Mina’s betrayal. Their marriage is a lifeless mockery of the institution. Their son, named Quincey after their fallen friend Quincey P. Morris, has turned out to be a rebellious whiner (think: Luke in Star Wars Episode IV) who wishes to be an actor rather than follow in his father’s lawyerly footsteps. Jack has become a near-lunatic morphine addict who has been corresponding with a surprising force. Arthur has become a death-seeking hermit who married a friend’s daughter to save their family financially, yet spends his days and nights bemoaning the fact he didn’t get to marry—or die with—Lucy Westenra. (I can’t comment on Van Helsing without giving secrets away, but B. Stoker fans might get as upset as I did with the choices D. Stoker has him make.)

It’s the stoic Mina who looks the hero (heroine) at first. She’s remained youthful and vibrant while decaying on the inside from the secrets and unspoken desire for her “dead” dark prince. For some reason (vampiric, of course), members of the band of heroes are dying off. Prostitutes are being murdered in the fashion of Jack the Ripper, which an obsessed-yet-dishonored inspector wishes to resolve after losing the Ripper case 25 years before.

Characters move toward and away from one another in a maddening ebb and flow as information is passed in bits and pieces that keep main players just “that side” of danger. D. Stoker introduces his great-granduncle as a character in the novel, but portrays him as a power-hungry man whose sanity and ethics should be questioned. That upset me, but I’m not a member of the Stoker family and don’t have the luxury of stories around the dinner table to tell me whether this was literary license or some sort of vent.

D. Stoker also introduces a female vampire who provides a bit much in the way of sordid violence. And here’s where I want to mention Holt’s occupational influence. The battle scenes, sex scenes, death scenes, etc., are written in a way that makes them appear like the set-up for the next movie, yet the writing doesn’t flow like you’re watching a movie, so when the scenes suddenly hit, they surprise the reader. (Methinks some Hollywood film studio is trying to save a step somewhere…)

By the middle of the novel, the action took on purpose. The plot became less fuzzy. People took action for reasons that propelled the story quickly. I picked out a character to root for, and several to root against. I’m trying not to give away spoilers, because I recommend this novel for any vampire fan (especially those prone to reading Meyer novels), but the title gives away the come-back character’s presence. You get to decide whose side he’s on. You get to decide which storyline from which character’s confused and half-informed theories you believe is formed from good facts and which is influenced by vampiric lies.

The good news in all this is that Mina, Quincey, and others who survive into the second half don’t need an organized or cohesive team to defeat the antagonist. I’ll let readers decide who that is as they get to the end. What’s interesting is you get an ambiguous ending that almost lets you decide whether or not Dracula remained the “bad guy.” (The final line in the novel made me laugh out loud.)

If you’re looking for a good vampire story, you can’t beat the original B. Stoker’s Dracula. This D. Stoker sequel is a decent book on its own merits, but the poor author won’t get the benefit of the doubt because he’s got “that name.” When your great-granduncle has a horror award named after him, you have a lot to live up to when you start rewriting pieces of the horror novel that propelled him to fame. From scattered, random gems of excellent writing to a fast-paced second half, D. Stoker has provided an entertaining story that has its moments of frustration and poor proofreading, and its moments of mystery and motion.

From Sandy Lender, author of Choices Meant for gods(less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 26, 2009 Gynger rated it 1 of 5 stars

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I'm unsure as to what to say about this book. I got it for christmas as was extremely excited to read it, in fact I read it in 2 days (with interruption of course). I suppose I should start of by saying that I have actually read the first Dracula and I love the story on so many levels. With this book I was looking forward to getting away of the horrid things Twilight has done to the vampire myths and going back to people that should have a vested interest in keeping the original ideals. This was...more I'm unsure as to what to say about this book. I got it for christmas as was extremely excited to read it, in fact I read it in 2 days (with interruption of course). I suppose I should start of by saying that I have actually read the first Dracula and I love the story on so many levels. With this book I was looking forward to getting away of the horrid things Twilight has done to the vampire myths and going back to people that should have a vested interest in keeping the original ideals. This was not that case.

The Un-dead started with promise, while I didn't know where the female vampire story was going, it did show steward in the way I would expect him 25 years later, still chasing vampires. And, of course, you need a descendent to carry on the fight (Quincy from Mina and Jonathan). I can even justify the idea of making Dracula a good guy in "Wicked" style (not that I approve as Dracula's cool calculating evil is what made him such an intriguing character to begin with, still I'm trying to give it the ben. of doubt), but other than that it is merely a hodge-podge of name dropping, mainstreaming, and plot splitting. It was like the author didn't know which direction he (they) wanted to go so many were taken. I adore the story of Jack the Ripper as well but I can't tell you how upset I was when he was first introduced. And John Barrymore? Really?

I have to agree with everyone that said it just seemed like bad fan fic, that is it completely. Two guys got together and wanted to see how they could make some money on the vampire fad, sadly Stokers name had to be drug into it. Honestly I think that he would be turning in his grave. The entire essence of the original was lost.... all the meanings, the class struggle, the good/evil, the science/religion, overcoming evil with intellect, all the small touches that made Dracula the classic that it is were missing and in their place was name dropping, graphic violence and selling out. I don't understand how anyone who actually read the original liked this one but to each their own I suppose.

Also, a final note. When they ended with the Titanic reference at the end that was it for me, there was no way to save it. I put the book down in an actual state of mourning.

two post scripts.

one please excuse my babbling, it is 5 in the morning and I have not slept.

two- all that said I am still glad I read the book and encourage any true fan of Dracula to do the same merely because I think it is important form your own opinion and also I think that the literature that is inspired from classic literature is just as important when looking at what the classic has down for or said for society as a whole... just a thought. (less)

5 likes · like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
What did people think after reading Bram's Dracula ?	10	43	Apr 10, 2013 08:35pm
Dracula The Un-Read	3	28	Aug 04, 2012 09:33am
Out of Reality: “Дракула - Немъртвият”	1	13	Feb 10, 2010 09:10am

combine
Other Editions (36)

More editions...

Genres

Horror

150 users

Paranormal > Vampires

113 users

Historical Fiction

24 users

Fantasy > Paranormal

23 users

Fantasy > Supernatural

17 users

Thriller

9 users

Novels

7 users

Occult

6 users

Fantasy

5 users

Mystery

5 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Black Cathedral
by L.H. Maynard
The Vampire Archives
by Otto Penzler (Editor)
Candles Burning
by Tabitha King
Mina
by Marie Kiraly
Dracula, My Love: The Secret Journals of Mina Harker
by Syrie James

About Dacre Stoker

Dacre Stoker, a Canadian citizen and resident of the U.S., is the great-grandnephew of Bram Stoker. He is also the godson of H.G. Dacre Stoker, the commander of the AE2 submarine, whose tactics were instrumental in Gallipoli in Word War I.

Dacre, who now calls Aiken, South Carolina home, was a member of the Canadian Men's Modern Pentathlon Team, Senior World Championships in 1979 and coach of the C...more

More about Dacre Stoker...

Books by Dacre Stoker

Dracula in Visual Media: Film, Television, Comic Book and Electronic Game Appearances, 1921-2010

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Dracula l'immortel

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Dracula the Un-Dead

“Secrets are like flowers buried under snow. Eventually they rise up and push through into the light.” — 3 people liked it

“I prefer to play English characters. They have a knack for dying well. I have made my career superbly playing well-died Englishmen.” — 1 person liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Dracula the Un-Dead
avg rating	preview: Dracula the Un-Dead Goodreads rating: 3.05 (2391 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6420652-dracula-the-un-dead?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1255571700l/6420652.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6420652-dracula-the-un-dead?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Dracula the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker[/url]

Dracula the Un-Dead

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website