What do you think?
Rate this book
Dracula : Asylum
Since Bram Stoker first penned Dracula in 1897, this horror classic has been endlessly reinterpreted on stage, screen and print. Drawing on Universal Pictures' 1930s rendition of Count Dracula during the Golden Age of horror films, Asylum is a bold new turn on a story that has remained a consistent favorite for over 100 years. The book follows the activities at Dr. Seward's Sanatorium, the location from which Dracula drew several victims before being destroyed by Jonathan Harker in the original story. It is now after World War I and after being gone for years Dracula is suddenly restored to earth. Trapped beneath the grounds of the madhouse, his evil reaches out into the minds of the weak and insane - and as a new crop of victims is harvested, new heroes are needed to battle this impenetrable evil. Asylum combines intense horror, psychological tension and thrilling action to create a successor worthy of the original.
320 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published February 22, 2006
1 person is currently reading
91 people want to read
About the author
Paul Witcover
92 books35 followersThe author of Waking Beauty, Paul Witcover has also written a biography of Zora Neale Hurston and numerous short stories. He is the co-creator, with Elizabeth Hand, of the cult comic book series Anima and has served as the curator of the New York Review of Science Fiction reading series. His work has also appeared on HBO. He lives and writes in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
December 16, 2016
This one had the potential to be 5 stars, but a few things made it slip for me, which I will explain later.
First, this novel is set during WWI at Carfax Hospital, which is on the same grounds as the famous Carfax Abbey from the original Dracula novel. This is 20 years after the end of Stoker's Dracula. The biggest difference between the original novel and this loose sequel is this: in the original, they pursued Dracula to Europe and then cut his throat and stabbed him in the heart with a bowie knife. In this novel, Van Helsing instead staked Dracula at Carfax Abbey. He didn't complete the ritual, but intead left the stake in Dracula's chest and hid the coffin in the catacombs. (I wonder if perhaps the novel wasn't meant to be a sequel to a Dracula Movie rather than the novel?) UPDATE Dec 2016: This is a Universal Horror series book, so it is indeed meant to be a sequel to the movie rather than the novel. Not sure how I missed that when I first read it. However, when the Abbey is bombed, the entrance to the catacomb is reopened. The other major difference is that Renfield survived. However, his neck was broken by Dracula, and he suffers the aftereffects. Renfield then removes the stake, and Dracula is back again.
The other main plot point is that Cafax Hospital is being used to treat wounded Veterans with mental disorders. The main character is Dr. Lisa Watson, who is there to treat her fiancee. Her fiancee thinks hes Sherlock Holmes, leading to a few Holmes and Watson jokes. The idea of him thinking he's Holmes sounds like comedy, but really isn't treated as such. We later find out why her fiancee cracked, but I won't reveal that here.
Here's where the book lost me.
Still, this is a good read overall. The mixture of the true horrors of WWI with the supernatural horror of vampires made for a chilling atmosphere. The author seemed to be very well researched, and the parts dealing with the war came across as genuine.
If you are a Dracula fan, this one is worth a read. If you like historical horror dealing with WWI, this would probably be something you'd enjoy as well.
First, this novel is set during WWI at Carfax Hospital, which is on the same grounds as the famous Carfax Abbey from the original Dracula novel. This is 20 years after the end of Stoker's Dracula. The biggest difference between the original novel and this loose sequel is this: in the original, they pursued Dracula to Europe and then cut his throat and stabbed him in the heart with a bowie knife. In this novel, Van Helsing instead staked Dracula at Carfax Abbey. He didn't complete the ritual, but intead left the stake in Dracula's chest and hid the coffin in the catacombs. (I wonder if perhaps the novel wasn't meant to be a sequel to a Dracula Movie rather than the novel?) UPDATE Dec 2016: This is a Universal Horror series book, so it is indeed meant to be a sequel to the movie rather than the novel. Not sure how I missed that when I first read it. However, when the Abbey is bombed, the entrance to the catacomb is reopened. The other major difference is that Renfield survived. However, his neck was broken by Dracula, and he suffers the aftereffects. Renfield then removes the stake, and Dracula is back again.
The other main plot point is that Cafax Hospital is being used to treat wounded Veterans with mental disorders. The main character is Dr. Lisa Watson, who is there to treat her fiancee. Her fiancee thinks hes Sherlock Holmes, leading to a few Holmes and Watson jokes. The idea of him thinking he's Holmes sounds like comedy, but really isn't treated as such. We later find out why her fiancee cracked, but I won't reveal that here.
Here's where the book lost me.
Still, this is a good read overall. The mixture of the true horrors of WWI with the supernatural horror of vampires made for a chilling atmosphere. The author seemed to be very well researched, and the parts dealing with the war came across as genuine.
If you are a Dracula fan, this one is worth a read. If you like historical horror dealing with WWI, this would probably be something you'd enjoy as well.
May 14, 2013
I seem to be in the minority on this one. It was ok but it didn't really grab me. I had a real problem getting around the name of the FMC. I just don't buy her as a 'Lisa'. It doesn't fit the era. Half the book was more about Lisa trying to cure her fiance of his delusion that he is Sherlock Holmes. But not THAT Holmes. It was rather ridiculous, really. The blurb on the back says something about death claiming victim after victim and Dracula reaching out to the minds of the weak and insane. It might have been a much better book if either of those were true. The deaths were, at best, secondary. There were only two minds he reached out to. One, if you don't count Renny (Renfield) whom he already had control of. And that one was pretty pitiful and only a minor annoyance. It definitely had potential but failed to reach it. Or even come close.
August 10, 2013
Before my review, I'd like to preface this by saying I'm a huge Dracula fan, both the movie and original novel, as well as all the old Universal monster movies. The fact that someone is attempting to follow up a legend like Dracula, unfortunately already has one strike against them, but I was eager to check it out and planned to like it.
First, the good points of the book. The parts with Dracula in it are very well done. He has the same charm and creepiness that Bela Lugosi portrayed in the movie. There is a little surprise near the end, which I thought was very very cool. Also, I thought it was cool how it was set basically in the same location as the original movie.
Now for the negative parts of the book. The biggest one was that, being a book about Dracula, the author makes a serious error in judgment, by not having Dracula fully introduced until literally a THIRD of the way through the book. It starts off slowly and unfortunately stays slow for the next 100 pages or so, where there is really no movement of the plot or story to speak of. The sections that have to do with the Doctor (psychiatrist) and the treatment of her patient are incredibly tedious, boring, and completely stall any momentum in the story. I found myself skimming ahead more than once. There is one whole chapter where the whole thing is one of their sessions, and NOTHING to do with the plot happens in that chapter at all. It could have not been in the book and it wouldn't have hurt the story at all. To me, that says you shouldn't have it in there.
The book doesn't really get good until the last 100 pages or so, and most people aren't going to plod through the first 200 pages to get to that point, unless they are a die-hard fan like me. The bottom line is this book could have been great if it was at least 50 pages shorter. The editor did NOT do it any favors by keeping it so long and not trimming the fat.
I'm giving it three stars only because I'm a big Dracula fan, but the truth is it probably only deserves 2 or 2 and a half at most. I honestly can't believe this author put some of the pointless things in the story that he did. If you aren't a fan of Dracula I guarantee you wouldn't like this book. It's the only thing that makes it remotely readable.
First, the good points of the book. The parts with Dracula in it are very well done. He has the same charm and creepiness that Bela Lugosi portrayed in the movie. There is a little surprise near the end, which I thought was very very cool. Also, I thought it was cool how it was set basically in the same location as the original movie.
Now for the negative parts of the book. The biggest one was that, being a book about Dracula, the author makes a serious error in judgment, by not having Dracula fully introduced until literally a THIRD of the way through the book. It starts off slowly and unfortunately stays slow for the next 100 pages or so, where there is really no movement of the plot or story to speak of. The sections that have to do with the Doctor (psychiatrist) and the treatment of her patient are incredibly tedious, boring, and completely stall any momentum in the story. I found myself skimming ahead more than once. There is one whole chapter where the whole thing is one of their sessions, and NOTHING to do with the plot happens in that chapter at all. It could have not been in the book and it wouldn't have hurt the story at all. To me, that says you shouldn't have it in there.
The book doesn't really get good until the last 100 pages or so, and most people aren't going to plod through the first 200 pages to get to that point, unless they are a die-hard fan like me. The bottom line is this book could have been great if it was at least 50 pages shorter. The editor did NOT do it any favors by keeping it so long and not trimming the fat.
I'm giving it three stars only because I'm a big Dracula fan, but the truth is it probably only deserves 2 or 2 and a half at most. I honestly can't believe this author put some of the pointless things in the story that he did. If you aren't a fan of Dracula I guarantee you wouldn't like this book. It's the only thing that makes it remotely readable.
January 20, 2010
I likely never would have picked this book up because the movie tie-in would have discouraged me. Lucky for me, then, that my sister recommended it or I would have missed out on one of the surprise literary pleasures of my routine summer-reading binge.
I finished it on just three day's subway rides and missed my stop on one of them because I was too deep inside to realize I'd blown past Flatbush. Then I ended up letting another train go by to make sure I'd finish the last few pages I had left, standing there on a pretty drafty platform for another half-hour, unable to stop reading, because I knew I'd be forced to put it down when I got home and actually interact with people.
Initially, I thought I might enjoy the horror-thriller part of the book and did - genuine chills there, which I don't usually get when reading no matter what those "will send shivers up your spine" back-cover reviews usually say. But what carried me away was the war story. I can't imagine the amount of research that made those passages read like such a true and gut-wrenching account but it was the best kind, the kind that doesn't show itself off. Everything was in service to the action, which was relentless, horrifying and moving. Those were incredibly gripping chapters and they give the story soul, exactly what's needed to balance the more fantastical darkness of the classic Dracula myth.
But even the myth was reinvented and made fresh and truly scary. For once Dracula's power over everyone doesn't feel like a cartoon seduction but like some kind of elemental characteristic, as if an evolutionary byway had been taken. It didn't hurt that the female lead had real heft for once.
Fair warning: You'll also want a friend to read it so you can talk about the revelation at the end with someone. That's why my sister suggested that I read it, as it turned out! Very tricky.
FYI...this review is borrowed from my comments about the book on Amazon.com. I figured, why reinvent the wheel? But I noticed when copying it that another reviewer there called the book a cross between Dracula and All Quiet on the Western Front and thought "ah...that's exactly right!" so decided I'd add that here.
I finished it on just three day's subway rides and missed my stop on one of them because I was too deep inside to realize I'd blown past Flatbush. Then I ended up letting another train go by to make sure I'd finish the last few pages I had left, standing there on a pretty drafty platform for another half-hour, unable to stop reading, because I knew I'd be forced to put it down when I got home and actually interact with people.
Initially, I thought I might enjoy the horror-thriller part of the book and did - genuine chills there, which I don't usually get when reading no matter what those "will send shivers up your spine" back-cover reviews usually say. But what carried me away was the war story. I can't imagine the amount of research that made those passages read like such a true and gut-wrenching account but it was the best kind, the kind that doesn't show itself off. Everything was in service to the action, which was relentless, horrifying and moving. Those were incredibly gripping chapters and they give the story soul, exactly what's needed to balance the more fantastical darkness of the classic Dracula myth.
But even the myth was reinvented and made fresh and truly scary. For once Dracula's power over everyone doesn't feel like a cartoon seduction but like some kind of elemental characteristic, as if an evolutionary byway had been taken. It didn't hurt that the female lead had real heft for once.
Fair warning: You'll also want a friend to read it so you can talk about the revelation at the end with someone. That's why my sister suggested that I read it, as it turned out! Very tricky.
FYI...this review is borrowed from my comments about the book on Amazon.com. I figured, why reinvent the wheel? But I noticed when copying it that another reviewer there called the book a cross between Dracula and All Quiet on the Western Front and thought "ah...that's exactly right!" so decided I'd add that here.
February 25, 2009
This turned out to be much better than I expected considering how dismal the vast majority of vampire lit is. Set towards the end of WWI in England, the female protagonist is a likeable American psychiatrist (Dr. Watson) who pulls some familial strings to obtain a position treating shell-shocked vets in sanitorium-turned-asylum outside London. One of her patients is actually her fiancé - but he's suffering from severe amnesia and believes himself to be Sherlock Holmes (and yes, the phrase 'Elementary, Watson...' occurs).
*SPOILERS* But there's more! Dracula has been in stasis after a Van Helsing staked him but failed to finish the job necessary to permanently end his existence, and he commands his old slave Renfield (who suffers from some psychiatric issues himself) to help him rise again. In a mental sweep of the vet hospital, Dracula detects Dr. Watson and becomes determined to claim her as his bride. All sorts of back-and-forth murder and blood-sucking and betrayal ensue. *SPOILERS*
I found the style a bit over-the-top in terms of elaborate, often clichéd phrasing, ten-dollar-words, and run on sentences that would make any English teacher weep. Nonetheless, Witcover's writing is engaging and amusing enough, the dialogue decent, and if somewhat predictable, the plot is solid. Well-paced to read at a rapid rate, I enjoyed the use of psychiatric methods and terminology, the creative ending and the partially successful attempts at grander philosophical statements. Dracula is laughably melodramatic (and apparently the author modeled him after Bela Lugosi's cinematic portrayal), but other elements in the story provide some truly gruesome moments. The descriptions of Dracula's resting place and trench warfare made my skin crawl. A solid piece of horror/drama with restrained, smut-less romance.
*SPOILERS* But there's more! Dracula has been in stasis after a Van Helsing staked him but failed to finish the job necessary to permanently end his existence, and he commands his old slave Renfield (who suffers from some psychiatric issues himself) to help him rise again. In a mental sweep of the vet hospital, Dracula detects Dr. Watson and becomes determined to claim her as his bride. All sorts of back-and-forth murder and blood-sucking and betrayal ensue. *SPOILERS*
I found the style a bit over-the-top in terms of elaborate, often clichéd phrasing, ten-dollar-words, and run on sentences that would make any English teacher weep. Nonetheless, Witcover's writing is engaging and amusing enough, the dialogue decent, and if somewhat predictable, the plot is solid. Well-paced to read at a rapid rate, I enjoyed the use of psychiatric methods and terminology, the creative ending and the partially successful attempts at grander philosophical statements. Dracula is laughably melodramatic (and apparently the author modeled him after Bela Lugosi's cinematic portrayal), but other elements in the story provide some truly gruesome moments. The descriptions of Dracula's resting place and trench warfare made my skin crawl. A solid piece of horror/drama with restrained, smut-less romance.
February 21, 2011
During WWI, psychiatrist Lisa Watson tries to cure her fiance of shell shock and neurotic paralysis. Unfortunately, the mental hospital where she works is right across from Carfax Abbey, where the undead spirit of Dracula lies dreaming, and when Dracula awakens, he comes after Watson. This book was far better than I expected. Witcover's writing, especially in his scenes describing the horrors of trench warfare, was excellent. Witcover also gets high marks for sustaining excitement over the long climax of the book: it may not entirely convince, but it does not disappoint.
January 30, 2010
Entertaining. Really it rates a 3.5 but not up to the standard of 4.
February 19, 2016
Better than it had any right to be.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews