*sigh* I'm really thinking now that it's the process of mating that turns the Karys clan into complete cavemen. No matter how dynamic and interesting*sigh* I'm really thinking now that it's the process of mating that turns the Karys clan into complete cavemen. No matter how dynamic and interesting they are as a character, the second a mate enters the picture, she becomes way more interesting than him -- not to mention it turns the guys into possessive douchecanoes....more
Probably my favorite in the series so far. We're well into the world now, so there's not as much exposition. Also, what can I say? I love a fiery redhProbably my favorite in the series so far. We're well into the world now, so there's not as much exposition. Also, what can I say? I love a fiery redhead witch and a hunky warrior vampire with the patience of a saint....more
**spoiler alert** Honestly, if the main vamp had been destroyed by Tesla's death ray, I would have added another star to the review. That being said,**spoiler alert** Honestly, if the main vamp had been destroyed by Tesla's death ray, I would have added another star to the review. That being said, this is a solid Dracula 'sequel' of sorts, melding elements of Stoker's research with 'real' vampire history. There's no unnecessary (and, quite frankly, disturbing) romanticizing of vampires. They're killers and bloodthirsty monsters, not wounded, passionate, misunderstood creatures of the night. Yes, they want to be reunited with their wives, but only so they can bang and spawn more vampires. Therefore, there's not much in the female character department, save for an intriguing, strong lady named Sonia, but I'd rather one decent female character than a bunch of swoony, pity-obsessed girls chasing after their hunky undead lovahs. In fact, what makes this a better follow-up to Dracula than many interpretations or other sequels is the understanding of what kind of vampire Stoker created, and not trying to find another reason/excuse for a guy who kills a lot of people for food and power. This includes a better understanding of how religion (or faith) and the nature of evil play into the original story. The author clearly believes in a Christian God and understands the religious implications contained within the lore of Dracula and how those are connected. The story overall is pretty good -- a book appraiser/seller gets more than he bargained for when hired to assess and deliver missing pages of Stoker's original manuscript and ends up needing to fight, not so much for himself but to protect the world from vampires being given the opportunity to re-enter the modern world as a force bent on control and making people walking blood-bags and slaves. It paints a more realistic-feeling picture of the culture of the Dracul region, particularly from a Western perspective, and there's a suitable amount of gore without going over the top just for shock value.
I just really wish the whole set up for using Tesla's death ray to cook vampires would have happened. Because it's a really cool concept......more
An interesting take on the story of Countess Bathory, bringing modern psychology and personal demons into the mix with events from both the then and tAn interesting take on the story of Countess Bathory, bringing modern psychology and personal demons into the mix with events from both the then and the now. The time-skipping with generally short chapters did make the story somewhat choppy, and made it difficult to connect with the characters throughout the story. There's a couple secondary characters that fall into pretty poor stereotypes as well. However, overall there's a sense of reverence for the history and culture explored through the narrative, and despite a couple judgement calls that rival those of horror movie victims, the main characters are realistically flawed, intelligent, and likable. The author's real strength seems to lie primarily in the knowledge of and respect for eastern European culture, and I'm interested to read more of her works for that aspect....more
I really enjoyed the first book, Jane Bites Back, because it was a fun, quirky, intelligent little mind-candy book. The second book was much the same,I really enjoyed the first book, Jane Bites Back, because it was a fun, quirky, intelligent little mind-candy book. The second book was much the same, though not quite as engaging, mostly I think because of the more Hollywood, as opposed to literary, storyline -- and I mean this literally. The first book was all about Jane trying to be published and then dealing with the success of that, while trying to hide her vampirism (especially from the man she likes). This one deals with the now standard transformation of book to film aggravations, as well as hiding her vampirism from her now boyfriend and his creepy mother. It was an easy, fun read and I love how Byron is portrayed throughout. I hope the next book gets back to the more literary aspects of the first book with a more streamlined and focused story. ...more
**spoiler alert** More detailed rants... erm, reviews can be found here: http://breebers.blogspot.com. I will say that the characterization is not as**spoiler alert** More detailed rants... erm, reviews can be found here: http://breebers.blogspot.com. I will say that the characterization is not as strong as Stoker's. In the end what the back cover touts as a romantic thriller where Mina reveals her secret 'real' account of the events in the original novel left me with a tepid (at best) feeling toward the romance and a deep loathing for transforming Mina into Bella Swan....more
In some ways I think this book may have been better served by only including one supernatural being (vampires) instead of three (previous + werewolvesIn some ways I think this book may have been better served by only including one supernatural being (vampires) instead of three (previous + werewolves + zombies). In combining all these there was quite a bit of original plot left out. This, for a lifelong Rochester-hater, annoyed me because we never got much of his very poor treatment of Jane. One could actually see why he would be appealing as opposed to wondering what Jane would want with such a callous, selfish individual. Plus, I'd like to know how someone like, say, Jean Rhys would react to making Bertha a werewolf... Overall it was an interesting read. I became frustrated with myself for liking Rochester as much as I did (for which I blame the extrication of much of his appalling behaviour and picturing Toby Stephens as Rochester in my head). However, as always, I hated Mrs. Reed and St. John creeped me out. 19th century missionaries just have something of the creeper about them......more
**spoiler alert** Jane Austen is a vampire. In all the vampire insanity of the last few years, this was inevitable. Thankfully, Jane is neither a bloo**spoiler alert** Jane Austen is a vampire. In all the vampire insanity of the last few years, this was inevitable. Thankfully, Jane is neither a blood-sucking maniac who hisses at the dawn, nor a preening, world-class moper who chases deer and sparkles in the sun. She falls somewhere in the middle, more human than vampire (and more human than most of her kind) but still with the need to drink human blood to survive and that pesky immortality. This book was a lot of fun. A fast, easy read with many in-jokes for fans of 18th & 19th century British literature, and bibliophiles in general. While the issue of why Darcy is such a perfect model and unattainable isn't fully addressed, there's enough other men in Jane's life to keep me distracted from demanding an answer to that. Roll call! Walter - the nice, normal, 'average' guy with a sad past who has pined after Jane, unsuccessfully, low these several years. Kelly - the awesome literary publisher who adores Jane's 'new' novel and may or may not be... no, wait, he's gay. Byron, or Brian, or Tavish, or Grayson (yeah, saw that one coming a mile away) - he's Byron. Byron is a vampire. And Jane's sire. Surprised? Not me. In my worldview, 'fictional' Byron was an immortal, trained by Polidori (AKA Methos), and beheaded by Duncan MacLeod for being a first-class asshat. Thus Vamp-Byron had little to surprise me with.
Now, Charlotte Bronte as a complete psychopath and another product of Byron's siring was, well, not a surprise. However, her manic displays of crazy were quite entertaining. Personally, I would have pegged Emily to be the complete psycho in that family, but I suppose seeing as how they were both obsessed with the whole Byronic hero ideal either one of them being turned by Byron would have driven them head-over-moors crazy.
All in all I had fun reading this, even if it was, shall we say, less than literary (I did enjoy Walter's random rant about 'popular' versus 'literary' fiction) and I was typically at least one step ahead of Jane. And I don't think that stems from my penchant for Victorian literature and authors. I don't necessarily like being smarter than my protagonist so frequently, especially when she is a centuries-old Jane Austen who was a brilliant woman even in her time.
Not strictly speaking what one might consider traditional vampire stories, but most of them were very good. The 'vampires' range from strange medicalNot strictly speaking what one might consider traditional vampire stories, but most of them were very good. The 'vampires' range from strange medical cases to cover-ups for crimes to individuals that hold power over and/or entrance their victims, in some manner sucking the life from them.
The Holmes stories were very entertaining. The notes at the end of each story gave good insight into Doyle's time and his relationship with Stoker and other contemporaries of his. I am also magnificently entertained with stories wherein the protagonist flat out denies the possible existence of vampires written by a man who was one of the most well-known paranormal and mysticism obsessed authors of his day....more