Dracula the Un-Dead question

I think it is a much easier read than the first book. I really enjoyed the story, and it felt true to Bram's Dracula.

I enjoyed this book and felt the suspense much more with the sequal.

That is a complete crock of horse-pucky. If Dacre now claims to have found "a half finished manuscript" in Bram's vault, then he must have burned it because he certainly didn't use it as a basis for this book. There is no resemblance whatsoever between any work by Bram Stoker and this fan-fiction/screenplay mishmash.

I'm not quite as against the book as Robin, however I do agree in spirit. I enjoyed the book, but I decided it is just a modern retelling of a vampire tale with some familiar names. I do not relate it to the original. Dracula was pure evil and would not and could not fall in love. I also thought it was unnecessarily violent. Bram left a lot to the imagination trusting in his readers to get it, which makes for a much more intense experience. I did enjoy the story though, I just don't count it as a sequel.

I felt this book was a very poor attempt at the Dracula theme. The worst part is, it had been set up in my mind that this would be similar to the original, so when it was not, it was a big let down for me. I also felt that I was being hit over the head by somebody's research rather than enthralled by chilling literary writing.

I think the key to understanding what this novel is all about is in the introductory remarks about the Stoker family wanting to lay claim to the Dracula story again, after losing the copyright. The family lost all control or royalties from all the variations of the story done in novels and movies.
So, having said that, this novel seems to be an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to the story, tossing in anything they thought Hollywood might want to put in a new movie version. That's it in a nutshell, I think.
I found the trilogy by Jeanne Kalogridis to be a much better project. The characters experience an arc of development, and it ends with a very hopeful and uplifting belief in redemption.

I enjoyed it. It was concisely written and allowed greater insight. No, it was not written in the style of the original. It was not meant to be...

I thought it was pretty good for a sequel.

I bought a secondhand copy of this book in a charity shop while on holiday. I paid £1.99 for it. I wish I hadn't!

There is not a single echo of Bram Stoker's classic novel. This is one endless piece of 'thud and blunder'. Re-read the original, chaps, and see if you can grasp what made it great.

I LOVED this book. I am a classic vampire lover. I wouldn't even consider reading this book for YEARS, literally YEARS, because I thought it disrespectful for someone to claim to write a sequel to the masterpiece that was Dracula. I LOVED it. Dacre took some REALLY bold moves in this book, and no, it isn't Dracula but it is strong and appealing in its own right. I agree that it read like a movie but I REALLY enjoyed that! I WISH it were made into a movie. The book opened up so many doors to possibilities that I never even considered before when contemplating Bram Stoker's original. Listen, I was the first to join the "Twilight Book Burning" club. I have a snobbish reverence for Bram Stoker. This book is worth it if you read it in its own light. It is BOLD, it addresses old concepts through a slightly more modern lens and it stands on its own. I would also encourage you to do more research into WHY the book was written in the first place. Very interesting stuff! I loved it!