Post by dracenstein on Oct 16, 2009 19:13:39 GMT
This is, of course, the official sequel to Bram Stoker's classic.
Well, where do I start?
This is a not a true sequel. Bram Stoker wrote the book as a cross between his original vampire story and what 'really' happened as told to him by somebody in a pub.
So the authors wrote what they wanted and what they perceived their readers expected.
The plot, a vampire (Countess Elizabeth Bathory) has started killing off the heroes 25 years after the death of Dracula and young Quincey Harker is the hero of the piece, going against his father's desire of following him into law to be an actor and taken under the wing of famed Romanian stage actor Basarab. And police Inspector Cotsfold believes he has finally discovered who was Jack the Ripper (he helped investigate it and has become bitter and obsessed with the case), in Dr Abraham van Helsing...
The good, it is an easy, enjoyable read.
The rest. As mentioned, not a proper sequel to Dracula, as in taking the original as Gospel. They have changed things to suit them. Seward's asylum, and indeed most of the original setting, was set in Whitby. Vampire powers and abilities differ to what Stoker (Bram) wrote and Dracula himself has become a tragic, romantic anti-hero.
Romantic? Yes. He and Mina were lovers in 1888, just before he fled back to Transylvania.
At times, I thought I was reading a sequel to Frank Langella's Dracula and Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula.
The original encounter was set in 1888 and the new action takes place in 1912 (and features Bram Stoker as a secondary character). Famous events of those years? Got them.
And they hijacked one of Darth Vader's most famous moments.
In all, by itself, it's a good story and enjoyable to read, but it is not the sequel I wanted.
And they are planning on making this a trilogy.
Not recommended if you are a purist of Bram Stoker's original Dracula. Like me.
Well, where do I start?
This is a not a true sequel. Bram Stoker wrote the book as a cross between his original vampire story and what 'really' happened as told to him by somebody in a pub.
So the authors wrote what they wanted and what they perceived their readers expected.
The plot, a vampire (Countess Elizabeth Bathory) has started killing off the heroes 25 years after the death of Dracula and young Quincey Harker is the hero of the piece, going against his father's desire of following him into law to be an actor and taken under the wing of famed Romanian stage actor Basarab. And police Inspector Cotsfold believes he has finally discovered who was Jack the Ripper (he helped investigate it and has become bitter and obsessed with the case), in Dr Abraham van Helsing...
The good, it is an easy, enjoyable read.
The rest. As mentioned, not a proper sequel to Dracula, as in taking the original as Gospel. They have changed things to suit them. Seward's asylum, and indeed most of the original setting, was set in Whitby. Vampire powers and abilities differ to what Stoker (Bram) wrote and Dracula himself has become a tragic, romantic anti-hero.
Romantic? Yes. He and Mina were lovers in 1888, just before he fled back to Transylvania.
At times, I thought I was reading a sequel to Frank Langella's Dracula and Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula.
The original encounter was set in 1888 and the new action takes place in 1912 (and features Bram Stoker as a secondary character). Famous events of those years? Got them.
And they hijacked one of Darth Vader's most famous moments.
In all, by itself, it's a good story and enjoyable to read, but it is not the sequel I wanted.
And they are planning on making this a trilogy.
Not recommended if you are a purist of Bram Stoker's original Dracula. Like me.