Jami asked:

In Dracula vampires CAN and DO go out in sunlight. Harker even sees the Count in London DURING THE DAY stalking a woman wearing a large hat! Honestly! Did the authors not read the original novel?

like
8 years ago
4 answers

To answer questions about Dracula the Un-Dead, please sign up.

Jessica Laird I think the points made about adhering to the original novel need to be maintained w/in the context of knowing that the "original" novel as we know it is not the original at all, but in fact pg.1 was actually page 101 in the original. The original preface was also condensed and altered to fit what we know to be in the novel. In order to get published, Bram Stoker was forced to change and edit out a lot of his story, but sent other original copies out elsewhere. After being given the priviledge of looking at the original copy and the edited preface, as well as the 1st 102 missing pages, Dacre Stoker used them to not only write this book, but also his latest, Dracul, which I just got done reading and highly recommend.
It is rather arrogant to assume that the ancestor of Bram Stoker, who has not only read his works, but also has access to and read his journals and original works on Dracula, as well as Stoker's early life, would just "simply" not have bothered to read the "original." The information he has in his own personal care and has read for himself are far more "original" than what Dracula is known to be today. With that in mind, I would give it another shot. I haven't personally read the sequel, but plan too; however, as I stated previously, I just finished reading Dracul, and it had a ton of info, esp. in the back under the Author's Notes, about the family, and where the ideas for Dracul, as well as Dracula, could have originated, what facts are true, which are fiction, as well as pics of original manuscripts from his journals to support them. Happy reading!

flag

Jami He obviously did not read it. He screwed up so much in just the beginning. Stephine Meyers could write a Dracula sequel better than this idiot. Just b ...more
Jan 12, 2019 06:06PM · flag

Jessica Laird I understand. I admit I haven't read the original Dracula, but my husband has many times. I did, however, just finish reading Dracul, which is a great I understand. I admit I haven't read the original Dracula, but my husband has many times. I did, however, just finish reading Dracul, which is a great prequel and has some great factual data at the end of the book related to both Dracula and Dracul, pictures of Bram's diary and notes about Dracula, and where he got his ideas from. This really isn't my area of literature. My husband originally picked up Draclu but I ended up reading it and couldn't put me down. Took about 5 days (we have 2 small children) so I'd say I did pretty good. Really enjoyed it and the personal family notes from journals that he shared showing Bram's original ideas. The fact that the original preface was edited down to nothing and that the 1st 102 pages were stripped from the story, that where the story as we know Dracula to start at actually would have been closer to the middle rather than the beginning, was intriguing. It would add a lot more to the story to have both the original preface and the first 102 pages, but it is a good story non-the-less. Dracul is the 1st book I've read by Dacre Stoker but I thought it was wonderful. I would recommend it to you b/c it makes Dracula much richer and you start to wonder about how the story would have been had be had the whole story. My point wasn't to vindicate Dacre Stoker simply b/c he was a Stoker, but to say that consideration should be taken that with him having such access to all the journals and the ideas contained within them for not only Dracula, but also the history of Bram Stoker, it provides a different context with which to view his other works from since he is drawing from information not previously made known to the public. Basically, he is using info. that was only privy to him and making it public to us in the form of his own version of things and how it might of been. So, my point is, that would seem a little foreign and "unoriginal," to us, but may be the closest thing to SOME of the original since he's seen the original notes, preface, and 1st 102 pages. Either way, it's not a big deal, and I would still definitely recommend the book I read, Dracul. ...more
Jan 14, 2019 11:15PM · flag

Pulse I would read the notes at the back of the book. It explains it... they made changes like that according to popular/modern vampire lore.

flag

Filipa Carujo In the version of the book that I read, they explain that. The change was made because of the movies. Vampires can actually go out in sunlight, but, according to the Dacre Stoker, "We decided appeal to science and paracenific studies in order to uptade, very carefully, Bram Stoker's vampires (...) With that in mind, Ian and I have assumed the theory that vampires melt into ash in the sunlight due to an allergic / chemical reaction in the viral vampiric blood that transforms the DNA of vampires".
I think you sould search for this explanations, because they are actually really interesting if you can open your mind for them. :)

flag

Maggie May I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt so when I read that on page 2 (or somewhere right there at the beginning) I thought maybe they chose to change that just to reflect modern ideas about vampires. However as I read on and saw how many things they arbitrarily changed and how completely they failed to understand the characters of the original novel I, too, had to conclude that Dacre Stoker and his co-author simply didn’t bother to read Dracula.

flag

More questions about Dracula the Un-Dead…

Dracula the Un-Dead

by Dacre Stoker

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

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more