Dracula the Un-Dead

I actually feel bad about making this review but, this book is so horrible that I feel cheated. I saw it in Barnes and Noble and wanted to buy it but knew that somehow it was going to be in audiobook format. I used a credit to get this book and now, I want it back. There is such a difference between the historical Dracula and the character that "Bram" Stoker created. It seems as if Dacre and Holt took more from Coppola's version than Bram's. I'm really let down by this book. I expected more from a Stoker, but then again, talent doesn't always run in the lineage. This is one book I'd like to erase from my memory.

First, this is a very entertaining book with a flawless narration by Simon Prebble. I enjoyed it immensely. Less of a sequel and more of a "re-imagining," this novel is built on the premise that Bram Stoker, in his original book, distorted the truth about the ancient vampire's motives and purpose. Prince (not Count) Dracula, it turns out, has been grossly misunderstood. Successful in capturing the mood and tone of the original, "Dracula the Un-Dead" also brings back the first book's principal characters, rejoining their lives 25 years after the events of the previous book. Though the story suffers from a few disturbing inconsistencies and several plot twists and action scenes obviously designed for Hollywood, it is a commendable effort that should please most fans of the original Bram Stoker novel.

I had high hopes for this book but was greatly towards the halfway point of the book. It was very much divorced from Bram Stoker. What I would have liked was journal and letter entries from the characters as Stoker originally wrote. Furthermore, I truly did not like the story. It was unnecessarily gory, it was not in the same vain as the original and the characters were not believable. I felt that this was a sequel to the film, Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1991. None of it made any sense and the authors take on the original story was not what I expected. I forced myself to finish it. It was just not that good and I wasn't happy with my decision to download it. Just not good writing although the performance by Simon Prebble was very well done. By the way, ending...was god awful.

SO boring and slow that I could hardly make myself listen to it long enough to form any interest at all in the characters. I managed to slog through to the end and then wished I hadn't because the end was so stupid (like something a high school student would write). Practically everyone in the whole book is miserable and has serious moral failings and it was hard to care about any of them. Don't waste your credits.

I agree that Prebble's narration is as effective as ever;if you haven't heard his reading of Bonfiglioli's books, you really should; he gives the narrator's character texture and real dimension. However, not even Prebble could save this story.
Potential Spoiler Alert Here!! I was a very disappointed with this addition to the legend. Rather than build upon the existing story, the authors have decided on a bit of revisionist pseudo-history - effectively re-writing Stoker's original story by looking back and changing events and motives. The result is a plot that is more Rice than Stoker. The stink of cheap gothic romance is present here. The addition of a love plot and the reconstruction of the story through a different viewpoint aren't particularly artful or particularly effective. I felt myself groaning audibly at some of the lines, the twists in the plot as well as at the shallowness of the characters given the length of the book and the possibilities. Look out for the massive plot mistake regarding who spilled the beans to Stoker (almost like they changed their minds mid-stream) or forgot who they implied did the deed. Mina is a weak character, Jonathan has become something inconsistent with his earlier character, Dracula no longer a decent villain he clearly was before, Van Helsing's character is wildly inconsistent, ugh. I can't go on. By all means listen and add this to your library to know the full truth and to judge for yourself, but do not expect the joy and fear inspired by the original.

The book was a turn off for me. I love the original classic and I felt this "sequel" was just not up to the press. The book is not as creepy, scary, or fun as the original. The wonderful original band of heroes are now framed as drunks, fools, and full of self pity. Dracula is not a monster but a noble hero (come on). The vampires now have new powers such as being able to fly accross countries in hours (why did Dracula then have to take a ship to England in the original) and without many of the original weaknesses. Finally there is a driverless horse carriage (that most of also flown to England) that no one takes notice of in London.

Book is well researched but bound to disappoint fans of the original. Those who have not read the original but love modern vampire literature will find this tame, kind of tiresome, and without much bite.

The book is well researched, well written, and the reader was great but this couldn't save it. Lets face it writing a sequel to a masterful classic without upseting fans was an almost impossible task from the first...

The story was plausible and continued beautifully.

Quincy Harker's realization of the who Dracula was and his selfish judgement call on his mother, blew me away.

I was in the story with him. His telling of the story made it seem as if he and I were following the characters around and he was explaining to me what I was seeing.

I was over joyed.

I would love to there to be a part 3. Dracula and Mina should return. Quincy should arrive in America as a vampire hunter.

Reviting throughout! Lots of fun. Didn't want it to end