Tuesday , August 14 2018
Home / Books / Book Reviews / Book Review: Dracula: the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker & Ian Holt
We thought Dracula was dead; we were deadly wrong.

Book Review: Dracula: the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker & Ian Holt

Yes, you read the title right. Someone named ‘Stoker’ wrote a book titled Dracula. No, it’s not the same Stoker as Bram, but close: it’s his great grand-nephew. And yes, it is the same Dracula, but 25 years later.

Like an old pair of pants you slip back on, the book seems oddly familiar and yet strangely different at the same time (provided you still fit in them). The characters are all back, but the 25 years between the last time we saw them and this reconnection have changed them, almost beyond recognition. Van Helsing, the leader of the intrepid band that chased after Dracula 25 years ago is old and dying; Jonathan and Mina Harker are unhappily married with a son who has grown up without knowing of his parents’ past; Arthur Holmwood, Lucy’s fiancé, is now full of anger and bitterness over his loss; his close friend, Dr. Jack Seward, is a drug addict and has lost both his practice and the respect of his peers.

It’s a little distressing to see the protagonists from the classic Bram Stoker Dracula fall from such heroic heights to such conditions. But it’s only natural that the horrific adventures the group went through 25 years earlier left an indelible impression on each of them, affecting them to the point that they are almost unrecognizable. These changes become all the more logical as one works one’s way through the book, which traces the path each one walked in the last 25 years. As understanding dawns, so does a sad acceptance that even the bravest of heroes, who willingly faced evil and death in the name of God and goodness, can sink into a pit of despair.

It’s quite realistic, scarily so, which makes Dracula: The Un-Dead a sequel worthy of the original. The story is a page-turner; the details are gripping; the horror, well, it’s horrifying. It’s a great book to read – albeit an imperfect one.

The original Dracula was written by Bram Stoker and first published in 1897. In (very) short, it tells the story of a band of heroes traveling to Eastern Europe to pursue the evil known as Dracula. Just this month, on October 13th to be exact (too bad it wasn’t a Friday), the sequel, Dracula: the un-dead was published. Written by the great-grandnephew of Bram Stoker (Dacre Stoker), the book finds our intrepid band of heroes 25 years later. This book is brilliantly written and a page-turner.

So why was I so uncomfortable reading this book?

Don’t get me wrong, I loved every page of it. The story was spellbinding, so much so that I am currently severely lacking sleep (you try putting this book down!) But there was something that bothered me the instant I cracked it open and was struck by the difference in style between the original and the sequel. After some reflection and a lot of coffee, I have come to realise that this discomfort has a lot to do with the individualistic point of view taken in the sequel, when the original developed the individuality of the characters while always retaining its focus on the group.

In the original, the story is much more intertwined; the characters’ thoughts are less self-centred, and the style focuses on the advancement of groups of people – wife and husband, two rivals, two friends, a student and his mentor – rather than on the advancement of each individual. Each character’s individuality is explored in relation to the others’ as well as in relation to the story. The story is clearly plot-driven.

In the sequel, the story is more focused on each individual rather than on the group; the story is character-driven. While in the original, each character’s individuality stood out, they were still part of a cohesive whole who managed to battle Dracula; the sequel is written in a way that enhances each characters’ individuality.

Another big difference is the level to which each Stoker horrifies their readers. Bram implied a lot, while Dacre describes it all. Bram hints at many things, while Dacre says them straight out. Bram poetically invokes many other things, while Dacre, in true 21st century style, not only says them, but embellishes.

Speaking of which, for the faint of heart: beware. Even if you read Bram Stoker’s original tale, it’s nothing compared to this one. On the plus side, all you students and gore-loving people who might have been slightly disappointed at the relative tameness of the original Dracula will be more than satisfied with the sequel. The descriptions are pretty horrific and stomach-churning.

Out in time for Halloween, this is the perfect book to read while waiting for children to come to your door trick-or-treating. Be warned; by the end of the evening, you might find yourself discriminating, either for or against, any child dressed as a vampire.

If it’s for or against is for you to find out.

About Sahar

Check Also

Theater Review (NYC): ‘Dracula’

Devised by playwright Patricia Lynn and director Geordie Broadwater, this hybrid or mutant entertainment is told in old-style cinematic fashion, but updated storywise to the present day, while hewing largely to the plot of the original novel. I found its curiosities just right for Halloween season.

One comment

  1. I read the original and I am reading the sequel. I want to tell the people that say that you can’t put it down, I don’t find that to be the case. I like so many others find the Un-Dead to be a big let down. I agree with Wallsight Dracula as the hero is STUPID. They didn’t have to make all the characters from the orginal pitiful and unlikeable. Yes 25years had passed so what took Bathroy so long to get pissed that Dracula threw her over for Mina,if that is why she was killing everyone.

    Minas’ character comes off very unlikeable especiality end the end when she dies and leaves her son to find for himself without anyone to tell him what is going on with his body and what will happen to him when he dies, according to her assetment he will become a vampire like his father. What was the point of bring God into it. I wonder did they read Bram Stokers book, he made no mention of a romance between Mina and Dracula. Mina in her diaries did not indicate that she had a romantic relationship with with Dracula and the way they presented it, I could only see that she was in lust with the vampire and she allowed that to come between her and her husband .

    Like Gone With The Wind some books should not have a sequel unless written by the orginal author. It was stated in the introduction that the was no evidence to say that Bram Stoker hads any intentions of writing a sequel. Hopfully Datce Stoker and Ian Holt will be satisfied with their 15 minutes of fame and not write another sequel to the sequel let a classic be a classic without tarnish.