Sandy Lender's Reviews > Dracula the Un-Dead

Dracula the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Jan 04, 2010

really liked it
Recommended for: vampire fans, horror fans, movie fans
Read in January, 2010 , read count: 1

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
1 like · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Dracula the Un-Dead.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-1 of 1) (1 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Stephen I enjoyed the book as well. It was several steps above the twiilght/tween garbage which is so prevalent. Dacre Stoker I feel provided the name and the notes which I suspect are real. Then he and Ian, worked on the synopsis then most likely Ian did most of the novel. I did enjoy it. The fact remains that it was written for a new audience, not the ones who read it when it first came out. I appreciated the afterword since it explained their rationale not just for the story but also for vampirism

back to top