Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Multiple Perspectives and Dealing with Lonliness.

When I was fourteen I was in grade nine at Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary School - with the short blue plaid kilt, the possible hunchback sighting in the church tower and the library stocked with french books, to supplement the extended french program, given you know, Quebec. At the time, my father was finally going to get the teeth he wore on wires that had to be taken out and cleaned nightly, stuck in permanently with screws. So I went with him for the six hour operation, so I could drive him home (No, I didn't have a license, but come on - it was Richmond Hill, there was no one around).

I was in my Hugo phase at the time. I had just read Hunchback, and wanted more of that depressingly picture mixture of sadness and thought. So I read through Dumas, then latched onto the ginormous French edition of Les Mis. It was amazing - and the reason I thought (and still think) it was amazing was do to the use of multiple perspectives to etch out the idea of "loneliness".

Enter Jojo Moyes' The Peacock Emporium:

Athene Forster is the most glamorous girl of her generation. She is also beautiful, spoilt and out of control. And two years after her marriage to the steady young heir to a farming estate the rumours have begun again.Thirty-five years on, Suzanna Peacock is saddled with her dazzling mother's legacy, at odds with her father and his second wife and struggling in a stalled marriage. The only place she finds comfort is in her shop - The Peacock Emporium. There she makes the first real friends of her life, including Alejandro, who is escaping his own ghosts in Argentina...

That synopsis can be found here and it is the same that is found on the back of the book, but I think it does the book itself a disservice. It starts out confusing and slow - and the time shifts within the novel can also be challenging, but when it all comes together the reader is left with a feeling of completeness. As if the pain and loneliness and the trials were all worth it to come to the realization that life is the most it can be when lived and loved, and to hide away and be afraid of your own life, is not way to live.

My favourite character is probably the character of Vivi. Suzanna's mother but so much more - the second part of the book is told from her perspective as a chubby blonde girl in the 1960s with a crush on her best friend and a sunny very innocent personality. When that best friend overlooks her for another, she takes it all within her and moves on - but never completely does. Though she moves to London and has a new life, filled with friends and a boyfriend, she never really gets over Douglas. And hearing about his tragic life through the grapevine, Vivi becomes a shadow of herself, hanging on desperately to each scrap of news from him, but never gathering the courage to face him. For most of the book you are left wondering what happened to bring them together, and you just cannot understand ... and then when you do, you realize that all the loneliness in the world is in some way chosen. And that giving up pride and such will be worth the love in the end.

I make it sound sappy - it isn't. It's a deep and moving book that made me cry. Me, cry. Exactly. It is well thought out and it pulls no punches.

That being said, I thought the ending was rushed.

You saw it coming, then it went - there was not much to experience in between. Though that scene at the Emporium with Ale and Suzanna goes on my top Ten.

Athene herself is interesting. You spend most of the book dismissing her because she paints such an awful picture. And then right at the end, your heart bleeds for her - for the bed she made for herself. The pain and the loss of herself to circumstance. To give a spoiled brat such character is hard - but it was satisfying. The loss is even more pronounced as no one knows of her personal struggles, since she's dead and no one could ever ask her. It makes such a tragic story.

This is a short review. I may lengthen it in future.

I am up to ...40 books I think? Not bad! :D


Thursday, July 22, 2010

Steampunk Literary "Magnum Opus"?

def. magnum opus
  1. A great work, especially a literary or artistic masterpiece.
  2. The greatest single work of an artist, writer, or composer.

[Latin : magnum, neuter of magnus, great + opus, work.]

The author of Boneshaker, Cherie Priest, has described her book as the steampunk "magnum opus" - that is, the pinnacle of great steampunk. I am not sure I agree.

Did I like the book? Oh yes.

Was it engaging and intriguing? Oh yes.

Can I wait for the second one? Maybe.

See, because it does contain all those great steam punk motifs - airships, 19th century setting, rifles, war (this one, the American Civil War), mad scientists (yes, in the plural), kick ass female characters, oh and you know, steam power - but it lacks the added umph for me to be like "Hell yes - that was steampunk awesomeness!" - even if it does have the best cover ever, and a great starting premise.

Anyways, a synopsis:

Maternal love faces formidable challenges in this stellar steampunk tale. In an alternate 1880s America, mad inventor Leviticus Blue is blamed for destroying Civil War–era Seattle. When Zeke Wilkes, Blue's son, goes into the walled wreck of a city to clear his father's name, Zeke's mother, Briar Wilkes, follows him in an airship, determined to rescue her son from the toxic gas that turns people into zombies (called rotters and described in gut-churning detail). When Briar learns that Seattle still has a mad inventor, Dr. Minnericht, who eerily resembles her dead husband, a simple rescue quickly turns into a thrilling race to save Zeke from the man who may be his father. Intelligent, exceptionally well written and showcasing a phenomenal strong female protagonist who embodies the complexities inherent in motherhood, this yarn is a must-read for the discerning steampunk fan.

That one is from Amazon.com.

Anyways, I have no problem with most of it - I just deny that it is the magnum opus of steampunk. Granted, I have - despite my long love affair with it - only read the basics, I feel this is just not explosive enough to essentially define the genre.

That having been said - I did like it. I liked the twist and turns the novel took, and I like the interactions between the characters. It is told alternatively from Briar and Zeke's POVs so you get an interesting perspective on the same characters we already encountered with one, by the other. The ending was excellent - sad but excellent.

And this new zombie crazed world - love the idea of "rotterS" - brilliant. It even scared me when the rotters were running after Briar, climbing a ladder (or trying to) to get to her! Brilliantly read!

Other things she did right was atmosphere - you feel like you're in the alternative history civil war era dystopia! You feel it! The lingo is the same, and the mettle of the people - they're int he gold starved - panhandler crazy west, after all. It is very well done.

I like the evocative imagery of the "walled city" - it's a popular theme, particularly in young adult books, but I like it for all the myriad of possible things it can be used to represent. In this case, I think it flutters around the edges of representing knowledge vs. ignorance and society vs. chaos. This book would play well to either of those themes - though with complications. After all - in this book, society is gained through the extortion of the chaos (in terms of manipulating and selling lemon juice).

Other things that were well done was the action sequences. (were the action sequences?) they were alive and jittery with fighting and running and breathlessness! I highly recommend the book just for that.

All in all - it is not a bad book. Great cover, excellent writing. Great mood and setting. Not a magnum opus.

Here are some links to some reviews and the author's website:
(As you can see - there is no shortage of interest on the internets for this book)

Until next time,

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

International Covers: Yay or Nay?

Yay, second installment of my covers series!
First I did Romance covers and how much I hate naked people on my book covers (yech, like really?), and now I go into International Covers!

What I mean is covers that are done different for a -one- book depending on which country the book will be sold in. For example:

Italian - North American - Bulgarian

Dutch - Portuguese - Italian

Greek - Japanese - Turkish

Korea - Germany
Those are various covers for Richelle Mead's Vampire Academy (I just finished Spirit Bound, that's book #5 - and I cannot wait for December ... sigh.) and as you can see, they are ... different. Sometimes vastly different. I mean compare the Japanese cover to the German cover ... or the Turkish cover to one of the Italian covers. There are vastly different interpretations of the book based on the cover art. Vastly.

And this is not unique to Vampire Academy. Take a look at the Harry Potter International Covers (below) or Twilight series. Never mind the various Neil Gaiman's and such.

So... what is the deal with all these different covers?

A few theories have been floated towards me: (1) Different publishing houses in different countries want the book to appeal to the widest audience possible; (2) support for native artists; (3) Pure preferences. Etc. I am not sure what I think of these arguments, really. I just know that I am usually very jealous that I don't live in the UK. They always seem to have the best covers.

I stumbled on this article while looking for a particular book cover (If you must know, it was the Korean version of Vampire Academy that caught my attention). It talks about how some countries try and express different parts of the novel: The US may highlight the historical aspects of Wolf Hall, where the UK may highlight the theme of it. I tend to agree, however, with this line of reasoning: (Call me a cynic...)
There are colder business reasons for creating jackets that differ by territory, says Julian Humphries, head cover designer at Fourth Estate: "Different sales channels have different sensibilities." It can be hard to pinpoint what exactly these sensibilities are – "It's a cultural thing," he says, "as taste-driven as different countries eating different things for breakfast" – but broadly speaking, literary fiction is an easier sell in mainland Europe than in the UK or the US, so publishers there can be less overt in their attempts to grab the attention of customers. "In Europe you often see book covers with simple images and plain type, and that sells books for them," says Burton, whose colourful design for A Fraction of the Whole by Steve Toltz stands in stark contrast to the black-and-white German edition. "The UK book market is more competitive, all the covers in shops shouting: 'Buy me!' We have to put on a bit of extra spin."

Yes, I am one of those who sides with the profitability of it, to be honest. I think that publishing houses are in it for the cash - and they would not invest money into a new cover if there wasn't some return for them. So it becomes suddenly a discussion of - are our cultures so different that covers in, for example Sweden - would be completely unprofitable in America? Despite the best seller status of the book?

Exhibit A.
Girl with a Dragon Tattoo (American). The original title is "Men Who Hate Women" (translated from the Swedish) and the original cover is

definitely not the same ... picture of an abused woman (and yes, I think it is also significant that the title changes when it came over to this side of the Atlantic, too) as opposed to a healthy girl with a minuscule tattoo (ha ha ha) or the bright yellow one I have.

I have read a few things that claim that a picture of an abused woman makes North Americans uncomfortable, and so leaving the cover as it was, would be a bad decision for the book publishers here. That has a few implications, but let's take that at face value and just ask: why?

The answers are varied, I think - partly due to socially conservative governments, culturally conservative people and I guess, the opposite of all that, book covers have become a new political tool.



Monday, July 12, 2010

A weekend at the Cottage ...

So this past weekend was the annual cottage trip for my boyfriend's friends. This is the ... 8th year they are doing (since, like 17?) and every year (I have only gone to three despite knowing them for 7 years) they seem to get rowdier and crazier - but funnily enough, not any drunker. Go figure. Anyways, there is a point to this, I swear. The boys have traditionally been dominant (except last year where it was 50/50), and though girls have infiltrated the ranks (there were 6 of us this year KAIVIN are our initials funnily enough ... played way too much Boggle this weekend) it is really a guy's weekend. With seven of them this weekend, it was an array of penis jokes (I mean, really - lots of penis jokes), lewd sexual commentary (again, imagine the worst most graphic, then double it - or triple it, and then imagine it again), people staring at my chest and asking me to jump so they jiggle, and rounds of chess, Settlers of Catan, Boggle, and some When Harry Met Sally.

Now to the point: One of my bf's friends, EB - he and I like the same type of books. We only discovered this when I saw him with Neil Gaiman's American Gods at the cottage last year. Then I was all up in his face about books. We then discovered that we have read a lot of the same books, and now he is my go-to on books for cottage weekend. Anyways, last week I sent him an email asking if I could borrow The Girl Who Played with Fire for the cottage weekend. Unfortunately, he had loaned it to a coworker who was taking an absurdly long time with it and thus could not bring it. But, he promised, I'll bring you something just as good.

So everyone got to the cottage on Wednesday to Thursday morning, except my car - where me, the BF and a friend J, were crammed with stuff and we got there Thursday night (after, like, no traffic and a long discussion on Eric Clapton vs. whatever the hell I had on my iPod) and we alternatively gushing about Blood Promise and Soon I will be Invincible - which generated enough interest from my two captives that I was asked about what else I had read (note, J asked me. Not the bf. He sighed and tried to ward off J's questions claiming that once started, I never shut up). I get out of the car with all my stuff (and a drunk - totally hammered - bf's bestie, DC, running at me and enveloping me in hairy Italian man arms) and E swipes a book from behind his back and leers down at me with something like bottled up excitement. I know that look. It is the same look I get when I am handing down something good to a friend of mine to read - it means there will be anxious discussion later. So I snatch the book and look at the cover:

Oh yes. This looks good. Epically good. I thank him and pull it to my chest and scamper off with dreams of the awesomeness.

And it didn't disappoint.

However, I must warn you - it took me two days to read (going to bed at 5am after drinking way too much and dancing around and bonfires and ... stuff I don't remember to clearly, distracts a body) and it was like reading an epic version of cottage weekend - it was swearing, penis jokes, male bonding over boobs, and lots of grossness. But it was epically good.

Without further ado: The John Dies at the End review!

It’s a drug that promises an out-of-body experience with each hit. On the street they call it Soy Sauce, and users can drift across time and dimensions. But some who come back are no longer human.

Suddenly a silent, otherworldly invasion is underway, and mankind needs a hero. What it gets instead is John and David, a pair of college dropouts who can barely hold down jobs.

Can these two stop the oncoming horror in time to save humanity?

No. No, they can’t.

That synopsis was from the author's website, which can be found here: http://www.johndiesattheend.com/ . It is an adult only website (love those!) and it is awesome, too. There are also apparently movie plans and a second book to tantalize me. And does that synopsis not give you shivers and make you want to read it?


Right, just me ... whatever.

Anyways, the story begins somewhere in the middle - or at least, close enough to the middle to call it a middle. It begins with a puzzle - a mind game, the main character David Wong, throws out there for you about buying axe handles and blades after killing a bug man and a slug,and then rekilling the bugman the next summer, because, well he came back. It's the sauce, man. The sentient sauce.

That's the prologue, really, A jumbled up mess. Anyways, the real meat of it begins when David gets interviewed by Arnie - a reporter who wants the inside scoop on the insanity that is David's life. So David tells him. And in comes a wild ride.

The reason I like this book is probably because it reminds me of the boys at the cottage. What I mean is that the plot rolls along, just quickly moving past things, going forward fast enough to keep it interesting a la Trainspotting, but not fast enough to lose you in the details - and there are loads of details. The language and the comedy bits are refreshing and the fact that it uses an unreliable narrative makes it masterful.

The unreliable narrative is a new thing of mine, so maybe I am a tad biased, but in this case I think it is the only way to deliver this story. I mean, the whole point is that there is never any proof - just David's word. And every time he is questioned or he brings evidence, it is somehow discounted. It is excellent.

And funny.

Did I mention that?

I think that funny book are usually underestimated. Like romance books, the highbrows (ugh, much?) of society push funny books to the side, unless they're written by British ex-Pats with that dry British wit or a comedian whose already made a bazillion dollars. Too bad though, since Absurdist fiction is probably the best type of social commentary - for me anyway. Next to zombies.

And the thing is, with this book I have yet to latch onto a firm strand of social commentary. Rather, I think what this is about is just enjoyment.

I highly recommend it!



Thursday, July 8, 2010


Hey all!
Hope everything is going well in the interwebs!
Today I will be reviewing Austin Grossman's Soon I will Be Invincible - a bloody brilliant superhero book I got off audible! Brilliant, seriously.
May be some spoilers - just fyi. And onto the review!

First off, here is the synopsis from Amazon:
The realm of comic book heroes and villains gets a dose of realism in this whimsical debut from game design consultant Grossman. The story shifts between the perspectives of Doctor Impossible, a brilliant scientist turned world's greatest menace, and Fatale, a lonely cyborg and the newest addition to the venerable group of heroes known as the Champions. Though he's been out of commission for a while, Doctor Impossible hatches a scheme to knock the planet out of orbit ("As the Earth grows colder, my power becomes apparent, and the nations submit," he reasons).

Meanwhile, Champions leader Corefire goes missing, and Fatale has to learn the ropes of superherodom as the conventional climactic showdown (at Doctor Impossible's secret lair) draws near. However fantastical, the characters (including a "genetic metahuman" and "an elite fairy guard") are thoughtfully portrayed, with Fatale—stuck in a perpetual existential crisis—bemused over the Champions' purpose, and Doctor Impossible wondering "whether the smartest man in the world has done the smartest thing he could with his life." Grossman dabbles in a host of themes—power, greed, fame, the pitfalls of ego—in this engrossing page-turner, broadening the appeal of an already inviting scenario.
As you can probably determine - it is a story pitting superheroes against supervillains - in all their masked and costumed glory. And it does it in such a dry, humourous way, you can forgive and even relish the cliches.

The story is told from two perspectives - the super Dr. Impossible - sarcastic and intelligent, hopelessly bent on world domination; and Fatale (Fay-tall) the cyborg who has no memory of her human life, or how she became a cyborg in the first place.

They are two very different but also very similar characters. Dr. Impossible is resolutely evil - he hates the Champions and he hatches schemes to fell them in his quest to take over the world, destory his nemesis Corefire (Jason) and become invincible. However, he is obsessed with the Champions. In his past recollections of college and his past attempts to beat the Champions, what comes out very strongly is how in tune he is to the Champions' world: he knows the top 3's identities - remembers when they went to school together, how they acted, what the they did, who they hung out with; he remembers details - like Damsel's weaknesses due to her mother's side, and Elven's faerie weaknesses shown the dungeon scene, marriages and dating and breakups and interviews; he cannot go more then a paragraph without mentioning one of them.

Similarly, Fatale is obsessed with being a Superhero, but worships the Champions, shown most predominantly in her stopping at the trophy room, and her idolization of certain members while insulting herself for thinking she was good enough to joint hem.

Both characters are outsiders looking in, and what this does is create an enviroment ripe with speculation and good analysis of the genre, but more importantly, it backhands our own culture and the way we look at things.

One example of the latter is Malign Hypercognition Disorder ("evil genius" syndrome). At first it seems like a gag - a name for something that kind of pokes fun at the genre - how there are so many "evil geniuses" out there looking for a fight. Then as Dr. Impossible goes on about it, it hit me: it's a thinly veiled critique on something that irks me, too - the over labelization of symptoms we don't understand. Like how fifty years ago there were hyper kids. Now they aren't hyper, they are OCD or ADD or HdAD, etc. The over labelization of this is mirrored by the over labelization of this superhero world: the whitecoats have "diagnosed" Dr. Impossible with MHD to make it easier to classify him - to make it easier, then, to discriminate against him. And it also carries this idea of medicating and rehabillitation - if he's labelle at MHD then there must be a way to treat him. And that, to me, anyway, reflects society's inability to take care of its own problems, and to compensate for this guilt, they medicate it. Let me explain: Instead of recognizing that Dr. Impossible's "condition" is merely actions he has chosen as a result of the experiences he's had throughout his life (shown in eerily well done flashbacks), society diagnosis him with something that naturally springs forth from him. Society is so uncomfortable with the idea that Dr. Impossible can choose to be the way he is, and so unresponsive to its own participation in this choice, that instead it chooses to ignore this and medicate the issue with bogus diagnosis and incarceration.

It's an interesting theory, and I like the delivery of it.

Another interesting theory I stumbled upon during one of my internet "research anything" hours, was the notion that Dr. Impossible is existing in an existentialist's dilemma - that is, his analytical assessment of his own futile efforts of world domination (i.e. this time it will be different ...) echo Sartre's "bad faith" in that he is deluding himself out of his own happy ending. Basically, it means he's not being honest with himself. It echoes the stories we've all heard from Abused Wives to Recovering addicts - it's an interesting parallel to draw in a supervillain - someone who is supposed to be all self assured and evil. The other prong in the existentialist bend is the idea that he is not a being-in-himself, but rather defines himself based on his own infamy - something that is adjudged by other people. At the same time, he claims this is unfair. Further to this, he looks at the heroes and defines them through their own hero-ness, forgetting that they have pasts like him, and that he may not know their whole story.

It's an interesting thought process.

Another aspect of this book I really liked was Fatale's moderate discussion eluding to the comic world "ages" (see, bronze, iron, gold) and the idea that everything with a metal age must also have a rust age. That was such a logical (albeit pessimist) next step that it dumbfounded me for a few seconds, before I continued onwards. It acts, I think, as a sort of Gotterdammerung (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Gotterdammerung) that is, it echoes the stories of Hesiod and other such pessimists, that we as humanity have fallen from grace and kep falling - an infinite regress. In this context it is meant, I think, to imply that everything good comes to an end, and so does everything bad. And in fact, this fluctuation is meant to be, and will be forever, and the players in these ages are only remembered for a brief moment in time. Something about the long and drawn out way Fatale addresses this has me bent on that type of an interpretation.

There are other characters in the book that equally as good and the real genius of the writing comes through by way of how the characters interact, and all the questions are left at the end. They are left to make you think. Do so.

All in all, this book was amazing! I recommend it whole-heartedly! It was excellent! It is a little deadpan and it has some funny but mildly strange lines - so be cautioned - it's for us nerds who get humour, but do not be alarmed! It will have parts for everyone!

Cheers! :D

Monday, July 5, 2010

Draining the Lifeblood ...

Out of the Dracula Canon.

Yep, this will be a review of Dracula: The Undead by Dacre Stoker. Now, first off - I thinkt he title of this post is slightly misleading. It is not a bad book - far from. However, it does kind of warp the Dracula tale so much that it would be near impossible to renew it. In my opinion, of course.

Anyways, synopsis!

Bram Stoker's Dracula is the prototypical horror novel, an inspiration for the world's seemingly limitless fascination with vampires. Though many have tried to replicate Stoker's horror classic-in books, television shows, and movies, only the 1931 Bela Lugosi film bore the Stoker family's support. Until now.

Dracula The Un-Dead is a bone-chilling sequel based on Bram Stoker's own handwritten notes for characters and plot threads excised from the original edition. Written with the blessing and cooperation of Stoker family members, Dracula The Un-Dead begins in 1912, twenty-five years after Dracula "crumbled into dust." Van Helsing's protégé, Dr. Jack Seward, is now a disgraced morphine addict obsessed with stamping out evil across Europe. Meanwhile, an unknowing Quincey Harker, the grown son of Jonathan and Mina, leaves law school for the London stage, only to stumble upon the troubled production of "Dracula," directed and produced by Bram Stoker himself.

The play plunges Quincey into the world of his parents' terrible secrets, but before he can confront them he experiences evil in a way he had never imagined. One by one, the band of heroes that defeated Dracula a quarter-century ago is being hunted down. Could it be that Dracula somehow survived their attack and is seeking revenge? Or is their another force at work whose relentless purpose is to destroy anything and anyone associated with Dracula?

Dracula The Un-Dead is deeply researched, rich in character, thrills and scares, and lovingly crafted as both an extension and celebration of one of the most classic popular novels in literature.

That is from the official website of the book, which can be found here: http://www.draculatheun-dead.com/index.htm .

At first, I have to say - I never thought Dracula was one of those classics that needed a sequel. That being said, as far as sequels go - it was good. The timing and pace mimics the original, the Gothic tone and the Victorian language contrasting with the now more graphic details and explicitness. That strikes a nice mix with me, and I know it's not for everyone - kind of like a Pride, Prejudice and Zombies mix, so I can understand that most people (the Purists, and so forth) won't like it, but I think it is a well done tone and it carries the reader forwards through the times after the original battle.

And that is what this book is about - what happens after the heroes go home? What happens when the heroes go home somewhat victorious and yet they never forget the horrors - never forget what they each have done, what the others have been forced to do? Etc. It is that kind of story.

And it picks up a quarter of a century after the battle - which makes sense, since that's when the hope and patience and the general good feelings of the past victories are now completely marred with inaction, anxiety, loss and regret. Among other things.

Mina and Jonathan are now strangers to one another - a fact never so poignant as the flashback Mina has to the first time she met Jonathan - so full of life and hope and love. Their marriage is a sham marriage, Jonathan whiling the time away with prostitutes and drinking, Mina mourning over the loss of her best friend and the still unspoken of love between her and Dracula. Their son, Quincey (named after The Quincey, yes) is a spoiled "artist" who fancies himself an actor and runs off to Paris to pretend to be at law school while secretly acting on the side. He bears a hate for his father that makes no sense to me - and this would be my only problem with the book - but since Quincey is the main character, is it a major problem.

Because Quincey is irritating.

Not just irritating, but spoiled and irritating. You spend half the book thinking he'd better be the next dead body and the other half of the book trying to figure out what the heck his motivation is. He seems too emotional, too irrational - too much like a 15 year old and not a 25 year old.

But other then him - the other characters are enticing, even the villain - Elizabeth Bathory (I will save my rant on women villains for later) is so well conceived that she jumps off the page. Though there are many questions left as to her origins and such (I suspect this is one in a series of sequels) as an antagonist she is coherent and quick witted, her recollections (of which there are too few) are poignant and severe. Amazing.

The plot itself is a little convuluted. There were times I was confused as to what was going on, but for the most part - the actions of the characters work - the deaths are meaningful, the sacrifices are felt - it is a good mix.

I think that there ought to have been more of a emphasis on the recollections of Bathory and Mina, and the way the original troupe had fallen apart. I think that Dracula's late introduction ought to have been more explored - where the heck has he been for twenty five years? And I would have made Quincey less a baby - because at the end, when he is supposed to have grown up - he is still irritating.

All in all - it is a good book. Mind, it is not absolutely amazing, but it is a good sequel - and that's what it's meant to be!

There are a few other Dracula sequels over the years that I have liked:

  • Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series
  • Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian
  • Freda Warrington's Dracula the Undead
  • Kate Cary Bloodline (and its sequel)

Dracula has been a cool character that's been analyzed a million times. Not my favourite (I have always been a Wolf man type of girl) but still immensely complex and worth pursuing. If you're interested there are a million resources I can direct you to - and I know everyone is sick of vampires (except me), but when it's done right, it's worth the read - despite the vampire insanity currently on the tubes.

Anyways, cheers! :)