What do you think?
Rate this book
James Whistler #1
Blutdurst
Nasaw's stunningly original novel introduces readers to a group of contemporary "blood addicts" in Northern California who have for the last 20 years--under the leadership of charismatic and cheerfully immoral multi-millionaire James Whistler and erstwhile intelligence officer and horror novelist Nick Santos--been satifying their boundless thirst for blood.
555 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1996
7 people are currently reading
557 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Nasaw
11 books147 followersJonathan Nasaw is the acclaimed author of Fear Itself and The Girls He Adored, both Literary Guild Selections. He lives in Pacific Grove, California.
Series:
* E.L. Pender
* James Whistler
Series:
* E.L. Pender
* James Whistler
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
July 8, 2016
“Hi, everybody. My name is Nick, and I’m a vampire.”
“Hi, Nick!”
Yes, it’s a meeting of Vampires Anonymous, the central conceit of Jonathan Nasaw’s hip horror novel. In this moonlit world, blood is just another drug, the ultimate high, the ultimate aphrodisiac. And no one ever needs to die – just a little sip does the trick. Of course, there are drawbacks. There’s the killer hangover, and blood-abuse does make a person light-sensitive. Otherwise the lifestyle doesn’t seem too bad. True, vampires wake up at sunset, the stale taste of last night’s bleeder still in their mouths, and their apartments stink something awful, but there are compensations, like enhanced strength, speed and sensory perception. Not to mention the incredible sex. So why would anyone seek refuge in a sort of Nosferatu twelve-step program? Because, no matter how cool they look in their dark glasses, all vampires (or, as they prefer to be called, recovering blood addicts) run the risk of losing control. They call it going werewolf. And it gets messy.
Real messy.
Sadly, much of The World on Blood concerns itself relentlessly with the recovery rhetoric of VA meetings, which turn out to be just as numbingly repetitious as those of every other such organization. (Just substitute blood for alcohol or drugs or gambling or sex or Stephenie Meyer novels.) Vampires, apparently, are just as tediously screwed up as everyone else. So what could possibly get a plot like thus up and flapping?
Enter the villain – a traditional vampire bent on destroying the organization from within. It’s even easy to understand why the old boy is so provoked. After all, if there’s one thing that gets on the undead’s nerves, it’s sanctimonious ex-bloodsuckers who don’t drink anymore.
That’s it. The whole book. Nothing of the supernatural remains, and the conflict becomes that of reformed versus orthodox. Gushing with complications, like the queer vamp hero who agonizes over whether to become a sperm donor, the novel nevertheless seems curiously drained. After all, once these creatures of the night have been demystified, what’s intriguing about them? Their sex lives! (Or so the author appears to believe.) Mercifully, these are not the ascetic martyrs of, say, an Anne Rice opus, evolved beyond passion or brevity of expression. No, these are party monsters. Orgies, threesomes, bi-vampires in hot tubs: somebody is always sucking something. Plus they’re all such globetrotters. The story veers from bathhouses in San Francisco to voodoo rituals on the islands, and sex scenes occur in cars and boats, everywhere but in a coffin. One such sequence climaxes just as a private jet touches down in Dallas.
“Even the O’s are bigger in Texas, she thought wonderingly.”
If the Talamasca only knew.
“Hi, Nick!”
Yes, it’s a meeting of Vampires Anonymous, the central conceit of Jonathan Nasaw’s hip horror novel. In this moonlit world, blood is just another drug, the ultimate high, the ultimate aphrodisiac. And no one ever needs to die – just a little sip does the trick. Of course, there are drawbacks. There’s the killer hangover, and blood-abuse does make a person light-sensitive. Otherwise the lifestyle doesn’t seem too bad. True, vampires wake up at sunset, the stale taste of last night’s bleeder still in their mouths, and their apartments stink something awful, but there are compensations, like enhanced strength, speed and sensory perception. Not to mention the incredible sex. So why would anyone seek refuge in a sort of Nosferatu twelve-step program? Because, no matter how cool they look in their dark glasses, all vampires (or, as they prefer to be called, recovering blood addicts) run the risk of losing control. They call it going werewolf. And it gets messy.
Real messy.
Sadly, much of The World on Blood concerns itself relentlessly with the recovery rhetoric of VA meetings, which turn out to be just as numbingly repetitious as those of every other such organization. (Just substitute blood for alcohol or drugs or gambling or sex or Stephenie Meyer novels.) Vampires, apparently, are just as tediously screwed up as everyone else. So what could possibly get a plot like thus up and flapping?
Enter the villain – a traditional vampire bent on destroying the organization from within. It’s even easy to understand why the old boy is so provoked. After all, if there’s one thing that gets on the undead’s nerves, it’s sanctimonious ex-bloodsuckers who don’t drink anymore.
That’s it. The whole book. Nothing of the supernatural remains, and the conflict becomes that of reformed versus orthodox. Gushing with complications, like the queer vamp hero who agonizes over whether to become a sperm donor, the novel nevertheless seems curiously drained. After all, once these creatures of the night have been demystified, what’s intriguing about them? Their sex lives! (Or so the author appears to believe.) Mercifully, these are not the ascetic martyrs of, say, an Anne Rice opus, evolved beyond passion or brevity of expression. No, these are party monsters. Orgies, threesomes, bi-vampires in hot tubs: somebody is always sucking something. Plus they’re all such globetrotters. The story veers from bathhouses in San Francisco to voodoo rituals on the islands, and sex scenes occur in cars and boats, everywhere but in a coffin. One such sequence climaxes just as a private jet touches down in Dallas.
“Even the O’s are bigger in Texas, she thought wonderingly.”
If the Talamasca only knew.
June 25, 2009
The reason I rate this book so highly is primarily because the author approaches the vampire mythology in a totally new way; so toss out all your old notions, because apparently vampires are normal humans until they realize that they are addicted to blood itselt - Nasaw has a sense of humor, as well - He even has a 12-step program for recovering vamps!!
March 21, 2013
What a difference a decade (plus) makes. I read TWOB when it was first published and I loved it with a burning firey passion. I put it on my keeper shelf because I was certain I would want to savor it again at a future date. So here we are 16 years later and...it's definitely lost some of it's charm. I still, solid 3 1/2 stars liked it; but it definitely didn't come close to my previous 5 star appraisal.
I think what I originally liked about TWOB was the original approach it took towards vampirism. It's still fairly original, looking at vampirism as basically a genetic abnormality that causes the afflicted to get wonderously high on blood, with baby blood being the ultimate crack snack. But of course back when I first read it, vampires hadn't yet become quite so popular and vampire books were not a dime a dozen.
On my second reading I found that the story was slow to build and I was reminded that I did not particularly like the characters. I didn't dislike them either, I was just sort of "meh" about the whole entourage (accept for Selene, I always liked Selene). I did warm up to everyone (who lived) by book's end and I will re-read the sequel "Shadows".
There was lots of blood which was mostly "ewww" and there was lots of sex involving a multitude of characters, none of whom I found particularly attractive and many that I found decidely unattractive, so that also was mostly "ewwww". Still it was entertaining. I rounded up to 4 stars for originality, especially in light of publication date.
I think what I originally liked about TWOB was the original approach it took towards vampirism. It's still fairly original, looking at vampirism as basically a genetic abnormality that causes the afflicted to get wonderously high on blood, with baby blood being the ultimate crack snack. But of course back when I first read it, vampires hadn't yet become quite so popular and vampire books were not a dime a dozen.
On my second reading I found that the story was slow to build and I was reminded that I did not particularly like the characters. I didn't dislike them either, I was just sort of "meh" about the whole entourage (accept for Selene, I always liked Selene). I did warm up to everyone (who lived) by book's end and I will re-read the sequel "Shadows".
There was lots of blood which was mostly "ewww" and there was lots of sex involving a multitude of characters, none of whom I found particularly attractive and many that I found decidely unattractive, so that also was mostly "ewwww". Still it was entertaining. I rounded up to 4 stars for originality, especially in light of publication date.
October 11, 2012
I’ve been a fan of Nasaw’s since first reading The Girls He Adored nearly a decade ago. Since then, I’ve tracked down all of his other books, because I really enjoy his writing style. This is actually the second time that I have read this vampire book (with a twist, as blood is more like a drug). And re-reading it is just as enjoyable as it was the first time around! There is a lot of violence and sex here, but this is a vampire novel, after all. Nasaw’s take on the vampire myth, as presenting his vampires more like junkies and other various forms of addicts is an interesting one and it works well here. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what happens in the sequel!
January 24, 2013
I though this was a very interesting book. It is a completely different view of vampires. Making being a vampire and addiction instead of a 'curse' like most people make it. I thought this take on things was great. I was upset at the ending. Leaves a lot to be desired. I then found out there is another one which I had to buy because I would like to find out what happens. I'll be reviewing that one as soon as it gets here and I finish. Number 2 will soon be read- Shadows
January 5, 2018
just another in a long, unrepentant line of sketchy vampire novels in the 90's... i obviously went through a phase where i just bought every damned (no pun intended) book available that used vampires as the pro/antagonists... silly, but who wouldn't want to be a vampire???
February 10, 2010
I bought this book for two reasons: 1) It was only $4 on a bargain shelf in a bookstore, 2) the premise intrigued me. I, like other reviewers of this book, was ready for a fresh take on vampirism. And I got it.
Unfortunately, I had to weed through pages and pages of cliche, nonsense, and over-romantic, unnecessary description to get that fresh take. The book started out boring, just a guy in his bedroom drinking a "mysterious" liquid from a Clamato jar. (Incidentally, I don't know why all the mystery about the blood in the first chapter. Anybody who buys this book knows it's about vampires.) Then, after countless monotonous pages of character development--including characters who are already dead when the novel begins and only appear in flashback!--the story finally begins to evolve in the LAST QUARTER OF THE BOOK. Why Nasaw makes the reader wait until that late in the novel to unveil the plot--not just the conflict, but the PLOT--is beyond me. And frankly, the conclusion was unsatisfactory. I thought the protagonist and the antagonist (I never could quite tell them apart) got along far too well throughout the book to make their conflict seem very believable, and the surprise at the end is neither surprising nor much of an end.
The devices were too obvious, the writing too sloppy and unrevised, and the concept too good to allow such mistakes. My only consolation in reading this book is that, with the proper connections, I actually have a shot at publishing myself. I mean, if Nasaw can do it, anybody can. I only hope that if I end up on the $4-bargain shelf, my readers will think they actually got a bargain. I didn't.
Unfortunately, I had to weed through pages and pages of cliche, nonsense, and over-romantic, unnecessary description to get that fresh take. The book started out boring, just a guy in his bedroom drinking a "mysterious" liquid from a Clamato jar. (Incidentally, I don't know why all the mystery about the blood in the first chapter. Anybody who buys this book knows it's about vampires.) Then, after countless monotonous pages of character development--including characters who are already dead when the novel begins and only appear in flashback!--the story finally begins to evolve in the LAST QUARTER OF THE BOOK. Why Nasaw makes the reader wait until that late in the novel to unveil the plot--not just the conflict, but the PLOT--is beyond me. And frankly, the conclusion was unsatisfactory. I thought the protagonist and the antagonist (I never could quite tell them apart) got along far too well throughout the book to make their conflict seem very believable, and the surprise at the end is neither surprising nor much of an end.
The devices were too obvious, the writing too sloppy and unrevised, and the concept too good to allow such mistakes. My only consolation in reading this book is that, with the proper connections, I actually have a shot at publishing myself. I mean, if Nasaw can do it, anybody can. I only hope that if I end up on the $4-bargain shelf, my readers will think they actually got a bargain. I didn't.
January 14, 2010
A VERY serious vampire book...it moves slowly, but the story is REALLY good......if you're truly into vampires. These are not your typical "can't-be-in-the-sun-allergic-to-garlic-stake-thru-the-heart" vampires. These are real people that really drink blood because it makes them "high". I don't recommend this book for anyone except the VERY vampire-loving! It is graphic, violent, and it involves babies...without spoiling it, don't read this book unless you are an AVID vampire fan. If you are, you WILL like it.
August 5, 2007
If you have read anne rice and enjoyed her vampire chronicles then you will probably enjoy this book that puts a more modern "believable" twist on what a vampire is. Suspenseful and erotic at times. Definitly a page turner.
November 24, 2008
I'm not sure. I kind of had a love hate relationship with this book. The whole vampire thing was a little different to read, however I did get sucked into the storyline and had to finish the book.
March 23, 2009
I was bored by the 3rd chapter. Slow paced and the new "twist" on vampirism was a real let down. I dont want to see my favorite mythological creatures downplayed as little more than modern junkies - I was so disappointed I quit reading and tossed the book in the "for the used book store" box.
March 13, 2008
This vampire telling is one of the coolest twists. It's not like any other I have read. A tale of addiction in a different light.
May 3, 2010
Must have missed the point completely, this book didn't do anything for me.
May 30, 2012
This book was great. Vampiric but from a drug stand point, instead of a food. The characters met as a VA group(Vampires Anonymous).
Full of sex, vampires and witches. Not for the prudish.
Full of sex, vampires and witches. Not for the prudish.
June 30, 2013
This book is wonderful, raunchy and kinda gross...I would not let my 17 year old read it, but I loved it when I read it when I was 22.
February 17, 2013
Oh, what can I say about this one? Well, it's okay. That's really it, in terms of the thumbnail recommendation. It's okay. It's not bad, it's not great. Just okay. I suppose a little more explanation as to the whys and hows is probably in order, so here we go:
First off, the good points. There's actually quite a few. The language and structure is well done, quick and easy to read (despite the author's love of the occasional rarely-used term or word, which I'll address in a bit.) The concepts are intriguing; painting vampires as just another type of addicts - and planting all the main characters into a support group called "VA" - is a great idea that works well, especially when the vampires gain no supernatural benefit from their feeding. Here, they're just folks with "odd" genetic markers. Like any other high, blood throws their hormones out of whack and allows them to perform seemingly superhuman feats - getting back up after having their skull caved in(with a can of creamed corn, no less!), being stronger than their build suggests, heightened senses, increased sexual prowess and drive (12+ hour orgies), enhanced agility and speed - that are still plausible. Witness anyone on PCP or bath salts, for example. And, of course, there are quite a few downsides. The crash when one comes off the high, the Elephant (the term several characters use to describe how dull and lifeless existence is when not high or when fresh off of the high), the paranoia, frenzied state and lack of coherent rational thought. All detailed wonderfully.
If you just read that paragraph, you're probably wondering why the book only gets a 3 and is "okay." Well, I'll tell you.
Characters and plotting. Most of the characters are just... lame. Whistler starts out okay - as the unrepentant blood addict trying to sabotage VA and ruin the life of his one-time best pal - but quickly degenerates into a helpless schmuck, twirling his mustache in faux villainy while simultaneously making proclamations of love and devotion to his blushing bride and their child. Our "hero," Nick Santos isn't much better as the self-righteous, self-appointed savior of vampirekind with his message of peace, harmony and "we can all be sober together." Admittedly, both types are probably present in more standard 12 step programs, but they just seem like caricatures to me. The Reverend Betty Shoemaker... ugh. She undergoes so many ridiculous personality shifts that it's almost impossible to try to decide what exactly she's supposed to be doing... though I think, given many of her actions, it's likely that she honestly doesn't know, either. January - the stereotypical "tough kid on her own, forced to make choices and perform deeds that others might consider horrible - is probably the best of the bunch, undergoing several shifts in personality but all of them actually explained and justified by her upbringing and the situations she's put into, but she still feels like a stereotype caricature under most circumstances. The other characters seem to have very little personality at all, often described solely by their sexual characteristics, in the scene only to do the whim of one of the main characters or shove the plot forward a half step before going back behind the scenes.
Plotwise, the book is a mess. Mainly due to the characters and their believability - or lack thereof. Almost every one of the characters feels like they were crammed into a situation and chose how to react because the author envisioned the plot a certain way and was forcing them to fulfill it, rather than how their own personalities might have dealt with the situation or because the author allowed the story to flow reasonably naturally. What plot there is gets frequently tossed aside or used to describe more sex - Whistler's "Creature" (and yes, it is described that way, given its own personality, and capitalized every single time) is described and used far too often; nearly every character in the cast has some form of sex with him at some point, and usually multiple times. Don't get me wrong, a little sex is never a bad thing, but when you can't turn 5 pages without tripping over the Creature, it's getting a little excessive. Then there's Nick. He's gay - as he tells us, repeatedly, nearly as often as the Creature is brought out - but over the course of the story he has sex with two women, repeatedly, while performing oral once on a man. No other mention of his supposed "gayness." (Note that almost all the other characters are at the very least bisexual. Nothing against that, but I'm very tired of vampires all being bi. If it was just about food - which is often equated with sex in vampire fiction - I could assume it as pragmatism. But as presented here - and in Anne Rice before it - it seems like "Just became a vampire? Here's your "Bone Anything That Moves" card!) The plot occasionally surfaces for brief moments - often in flashback scenes - but then vanishes beneath the waves of sex and blood once more. For it's grand finale, it ties everything up with a tidy bow and says "And they all lived happily ever after" in so many words.
Character dialogue feels odd; as noted above, there is a love of rare words. I don't necessarily object, but when 17 year old, street tough hooker addicts are tossing out terms like "anomie" it starts to stretch a little thin. It becomes further compounded when Whistler gives several "vis a vie" moments but it's spelled "viza vie." I think part of me died inside.
One final quibble. While I said earlier the language and style was decent, there is one little issue; the author apparently couldn't decide on a narrative voice. Nearly every chapter begins in third-person present-tense, then two or three paragraphs phases to become third-person past-tense. Once or twice it even devolves into third-person omniscient, mid-chapter, with no forewarning. All authors have their "oopsie" moments with shifting tense or perspective, and not all authors catch every instance of it; but this is happening every 15 pages or so. A trifle sloppy, methinks.
Anyway, as I said. It's okay. If you trip over it, it's worth a read; if for no other reason than to be reminded that there was a time when vampires actually killed people, hated sunlight due to personal pain instead of potentially giving them away, and found better things to do with their time than pass 12th grade Science for the umpteenth time. If you can set aside the cardboard cutout characters and embrace the "addict's eye view," there's things to like here.
First off, the good points. There's actually quite a few. The language and structure is well done, quick and easy to read (despite the author's love of the occasional rarely-used term or word, which I'll address in a bit.) The concepts are intriguing; painting vampires as just another type of addicts - and planting all the main characters into a support group called "VA" - is a great idea that works well, especially when the vampires gain no supernatural benefit from their feeding. Here, they're just folks with "odd" genetic markers. Like any other high, blood throws their hormones out of whack and allows them to perform seemingly superhuman feats - getting back up after having their skull caved in(with a can of creamed corn, no less!), being stronger than their build suggests, heightened senses, increased sexual prowess and drive (12+ hour orgies), enhanced agility and speed - that are still plausible. Witness anyone on PCP or bath salts, for example. And, of course, there are quite a few downsides. The crash when one comes off the high, the Elephant (the term several characters use to describe how dull and lifeless existence is when not high or when fresh off of the high), the paranoia, frenzied state and lack of coherent rational thought. All detailed wonderfully.
If you just read that paragraph, you're probably wondering why the book only gets a 3 and is "okay." Well, I'll tell you.
Characters and plotting. Most of the characters are just... lame. Whistler starts out okay - as the unrepentant blood addict trying to sabotage VA and ruin the life of his one-time best pal - but quickly degenerates into a helpless schmuck, twirling his mustache in faux villainy while simultaneously making proclamations of love and devotion to his blushing bride and their child. Our "hero," Nick Santos isn't much better as the self-righteous, self-appointed savior of vampirekind with his message of peace, harmony and "we can all be sober together." Admittedly, both types are probably present in more standard 12 step programs, but they just seem like caricatures to me. The Reverend Betty Shoemaker... ugh. She undergoes so many ridiculous personality shifts that it's almost impossible to try to decide what exactly she's supposed to be doing... though I think, given many of her actions, it's likely that she honestly doesn't know, either. January - the stereotypical "tough kid on her own, forced to make choices and perform deeds that others might consider horrible - is probably the best of the bunch, undergoing several shifts in personality but all of them actually explained and justified by her upbringing and the situations she's put into, but she still feels like a stereotype caricature under most circumstances. The other characters seem to have very little personality at all, often described solely by their sexual characteristics, in the scene only to do the whim of one of the main characters or shove the plot forward a half step before going back behind the scenes.
Plotwise, the book is a mess. Mainly due to the characters and their believability - or lack thereof. Almost every one of the characters feels like they were crammed into a situation and chose how to react because the author envisioned the plot a certain way and was forcing them to fulfill it, rather than how their own personalities might have dealt with the situation or because the author allowed the story to flow reasonably naturally. What plot there is gets frequently tossed aside or used to describe more sex - Whistler's "Creature" (and yes, it is described that way, given its own personality, and capitalized every single time) is described and used far too often; nearly every character in the cast has some form of sex with him at some point, and usually multiple times. Don't get me wrong, a little sex is never a bad thing, but when you can't turn 5 pages without tripping over the Creature, it's getting a little excessive. Then there's Nick. He's gay - as he tells us, repeatedly, nearly as often as the Creature is brought out - but over the course of the story he has sex with two women, repeatedly, while performing oral once on a man. No other mention of his supposed "gayness." (Note that almost all the other characters are at the very least bisexual. Nothing against that, but I'm very tired of vampires all being bi. If it was just about food - which is often equated with sex in vampire fiction - I could assume it as pragmatism. But as presented here - and in Anne Rice before it - it seems like "Just became a vampire? Here's your "Bone Anything That Moves" card!) The plot occasionally surfaces for brief moments - often in flashback scenes - but then vanishes beneath the waves of sex and blood once more. For it's grand finale, it ties everything up with a tidy bow and says "And they all lived happily ever after" in so many words.
Character dialogue feels odd; as noted above, there is a love of rare words. I don't necessarily object, but when 17 year old, street tough hooker addicts are tossing out terms like "anomie" it starts to stretch a little thin. It becomes further compounded when Whistler gives several "vis a vie" moments but it's spelled "viza vie." I think part of me died inside.
One final quibble. While I said earlier the language and style was decent, there is one little issue; the author apparently couldn't decide on a narrative voice. Nearly every chapter begins in third-person present-tense, then two or three paragraphs phases to become third-person past-tense. Once or twice it even devolves into third-person omniscient, mid-chapter, with no forewarning. All authors have their "oopsie" moments with shifting tense or perspective, and not all authors catch every instance of it; but this is happening every 15 pages or so. A trifle sloppy, methinks.
Anyway, as I said. It's okay. If you trip over it, it's worth a read; if for no other reason than to be reminded that there was a time when vampires actually killed people, hated sunlight due to personal pain instead of potentially giving them away, and found better things to do with their time than pass 12th grade Science for the umpteenth time. If you can set aside the cardboard cutout characters and embrace the "addict's eye view," there's things to like here.
May 29, 2024
I read this book years ago when I was in high school. I received a huge haul of wildly age inappropriate books thanks to some random relative I haven’t seen since. Reading it again as an adult now was a trip. This book has stuck with me from the first time I read it. It’s so well written and paints such a vibrant picture in my mind that it just pulls me in.
October 14, 2018
I loved this take on vampires being almost normal people.
Read
March 11, 2025Abgebrochen
May 27, 2012
The World On Blood...oh how you have confused and frustrated me over the past two weeks. This was one of those books that I simply HAD to finish...but couldn't bring myself to read more than a chapter at a time. Until the last three chapters - which I read rather rapidly.
This book was exhausting and infuriating while being well written with a great premise...it just didn't capture me.
TWOB was written from several point of views - that of the main character Nick Santos, his reverend, James Whistler, Lourdez Perez, and other more minor characters. Maybe this is what lost my interest.
I've enjoyed books from several perspectives before, but Nasaw didn't allow me to feel connected to any one of the characters. This was extremely frustrating, as I tried so hard to connect and feel attached to any-friggin-one.
The pregnancy situation was also bizarre and unrealistic. There is no freaking way I would look at some sexy addict and say "hmmm, great genes for a father." Really?! I mean, I love me some good crazy books with no realistic component however this book was meant to be based in our world - without any "real" paranormal elements. That being said, a lot of the novel didn't unfold organically.
And for those of you who haven't yet read the book - these "vampires" are more like glorified meth-addicts. I loved the idea behind the "realistic vampire." It was unique and fresh - but again missed the mark in a way that I can't exactly place my finger on. Maybe it was the baby blood thing? The lack of violence? The awkward relationships?
That being said, I adored the last three chapters and they alone made me want to read the next book - if only my library has it available. I finally felt a connection with some of the characters, even if I didn't understand a lot about them. And I am compelled to find out whether or not Nick's baby is a vampire...but I may just google it.
This book was exhausting and infuriating while being well written with a great premise...it just didn't capture me.
TWOB was written from several point of views - that of the main character Nick Santos, his reverend, James Whistler, Lourdez Perez, and other more minor characters. Maybe this is what lost my interest.
I've enjoyed books from several perspectives before, but Nasaw didn't allow me to feel connected to any one of the characters. This was extremely frustrating, as I tried so hard to connect and feel attached to any-friggin-one.
The pregnancy situation was also bizarre and unrealistic. There is no freaking way I would look at some sexy addict and say "hmmm, great genes for a father." Really?! I mean, I love me some good crazy books with no realistic component however this book was meant to be based in our world - without any "real" paranormal elements. That being said, a lot of the novel didn't unfold organically.
And for those of you who haven't yet read the book - these "vampires" are more like glorified meth-addicts. I loved the idea behind the "realistic vampire." It was unique and fresh - but again missed the mark in a way that I can't exactly place my finger on. Maybe it was the baby blood thing? The lack of violence? The awkward relationships?
That being said, I adored the last three chapters and they alone made me want to read the next book - if only my library has it available. I finally felt a connection with some of the characters, even if I didn't understand a lot about them. And I am compelled to find out whether or not Nick's baby is a vampire...but I may just google it.
Read
July 30, 2011I'm confused by all the good reviews on this book. If I wanted to read about addicts and meetings, I'd read about addicts and meetings. This is not a vampire book! Its about a group of crazy addicts who get high by drinking people's blood and then try to take down their self-formed self help group. Why bring down the self-help group, why not just leave? Why are the people in the group so intent on keeping people in who don't want to be there? Let them go. The inside jacket says its a "gripping thriller" It is more of a snooze fest, with boring characters I didn't care about, and long drawn out writing that doesn't go anywhere. I tried really hard to like it, as it sounded good, but it just didn't happen. Glad it was from the library, not the bookstore. I'd have been pissed if I had paid for it.
Read
June 22, 2016This is one I am hunting to have back in my bookshelf! Oh how I love this book!! Having always been a fan of vampire tales, this one was different to anything I had ever read and I fell for it completely. I had a different favorite character every time I read it.
If you are a fan of vampire stories but have grown tired of the old re-telling of the Dracula tale and/or (dare I even mention it? *cringes*) twilight.. Give this a read!
If you are a fan of vampire stories but have grown tired of the old re-telling of the Dracula tale and/or (dare I even mention it? *cringes*) twilight.. Give this a read!
January 22, 2011
This was one of the strangest books I’ve ever read. Picture a world were Vampires have to discover they’re vamps on their own. They are addicted to blood; it’s their drug to get stoned on. They have wild orgies lead by wiccas. They are the brains and the vamps are bad and over sexed. This is really the story of two friends on opposite ends of the stick. The sex was kinky and wild.
February 27, 2023
This book is really difficult to find now, but I thought it was a truly interesting and unique take on vampire fiction. I read it so long ago I couldn't accurately comment on more than the general plot, but I remember enjoying it and not feeling the need to compare it to other, more iconic vampire tales.
May 14, 2010
I got only 70 pages into this mess before giving it up. I rarely stop reading a book unless its premise truly bothers or bores me. This book attempts to make vampires into junkies the premise ended up leaving me bored.
July 24, 2014
I actually read this out of order--I read Shadows first. If this had been my introduction to this world instead of my second trip I may have liked it better. Nevertheless, it was well done and I enjoyed it.
September 21, 2020
A unique and transformative vampire story. Horror mixed with biting wit. A special love for the San Francisco Bay Area. One of my most reread books on my shelf. The characters and the ideas from this book will stay with you forever.
January 26, 2009
hat mir nicht gefallen
July 11, 2010
Only addiction and sex.
This book is nothing special. I wanted to stop reading...
This book is nothing special. I wanted to stop reading...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews