Dracula: The Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt

Pub date - October 13, 2009

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? (from bn.com)

The Un-Dead is a mash-up of chapters cut from Bram Stoker's original manuscript and parts added by his great-grandnephew, Dacre Stoker (pronounced like acre) and Dracula historian, Ian Holt. So it's not wholly written by these two. Stoker's original manuscript was much longer but was cut down by his publisher. Of course, the currently alive Stoke and Holt took some liberties with the original manuscript and filled out the gaps the previously unpublished parts left out.

It's been quite a while since I've read the original Dracula so my basis for comparison's off. I remembered enough to be able to pick up the story immediately without any confusion but, even if you're slightly unfamiliar with Dracula, this new one does go into some backstory of the original characters so you're not wholly lost. Your best best, however, is to read and know the original Dracula, know what those characters went through, why they ended up the way they did. It'll make this sequel all the more richer.

I've seen reviews in a few places on this book that weren't all that glowing. Kind of meh. As a fan of Dracula and vampires in general, I was actually very entertained by this book. Sure, it was a little out there. Some of the circumstances had me questioning if they actually fit in with the time of the original (since that's when it was written and the new stuff was supposed to blend) but at the end of the day, I enjoyed it.

I really liked (and this is rather depraved) the total ruin that befell all of the band after the assault on Dracula's castle. That's what this book focuses on the most, is how these characters are living their lives, what's happened to them and how it all feeds directly into the events of the story. Mina and Jonathan's marriage is held together by Scotch tape, basically, Dr. Seward's reputation is that of a lunatic from one of this own asylums and Holmwood is in a sham marriage because his real love, Lucy Westenra, died 25 years prior. Van Helsing is as he was expected: a mangy old man that's still hell-bent on immortalizing himself as a supreme vampire hunter and defending the world against the likes of Dracula. It's no surprise that that very notion is his downfall.

The addition of this new character, Quincey Harker, the son of Mina and Jonathan, is the catalyst for the entire story. He's the one that sets everything in motion, that brings everything to the point it ends up. The actions of most of the characters are made in order to protect Quincey from the truth. Oh how much that comes around to bite them in the ass. Why can't parents just talk to their children?

I'm not sure how I felt about this second presence that was added right from the very beginning whose rage fuels the apocalyptic events of the story. I liked her history and it plays well into the truth mythology (as oxymoronic as that is) of this character but I'm not sure how I liked it. It was alright and it created for some great action but I think it could have been done differently.

I also saw the situation with Quincey's actor idol coming from the second he stepped onto the page. There was just something about his name that I knew was off and played into his character. Turns out I was right. I could have lived without how this idol and Quincey are tied together though. That could have been done differently and have had the same effect on Quincey's character. Plus, we really don't see his reaction and how he deals with that knowledge once it's out there. It just pretty much ends. The thing is, I don't think we're going to get more, either. At least not family-sanctioned anyway, but it leaves doors open.

The Titanic is also brought in at the very end. Personally I felt that was a little contrived. The current authors did it because Bram Stoker died only days after the Titanic sank so it was kind of an homage but in terms of the story, I don't think it fit. It leaves you with the question of did he or didn't he? which is kind of annoying, especially since we're probably not going to see anything else after this book. I mean, why not just stick 'em on a regular ship and have the ending be a little more solidly open-ended than that? That kind of irked me, actually.

After a while you can start to pick up what's Stoker's original manuscript and what was added but there's still some confusion as to what was written when. I take issue with the sheer amount of sexuality in this one. I know it was present in the original but it was bordering on gratuitous on this one that seemed to overstay its original Victorian moral. Maybe it was written up a bit in order to play to a more current society. Whatever it was, it didn't blend as good into this storyline as it did into the original.

But I liked all of the history. Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt definitely put much more work into research than their predecessor and it showed. I always enjoy historical accuracy. And while they took liberties with the dates of the original manuscript, it fit in with the events of this one and, in the end, it all played together nicely. I liked the notion that, with hindsight, Dracula was "real" and taken from the lives of "real" people. I really liked that twist, especially when the "characters" started correcting book!Stoker's "mistakes." Very keen!

Is it as good as the original? Of course not. But it was entertaining. It was a mix of the modern need for action with the Victorian weight of the original. History and present day played a delicate balancing game that sometimes tipped over but would always seem to rescue itself. I think it's a good sequel to its original. It definitely could have been a hell of a lot worse and yeah, it could have been better but I'm glad we got what we got. It was good. I was entertained. The book itself did its job with no real complaint. Now I want to go back and re-read the original just to make comparisons which might alter my opinion of this one but I don't think by much. Regardless, I still didn't want to put the book down.

The duality of pitting really evil against the lesser of two evils is something that you see a lot of in the current vampire market but the evil here takes it so much further. It's so much more ruthless and nihilistic and sadistic than much of what's out there now. And the reason for the crusade is chilling and therein lies the real fear. But you can only fight evil with evil, right?

Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

Published September 1, 2009.

Against all odds, Katniss has won the Hunger Games. She and fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark are miraculously still alive. Katniss should be relieved, happy even. After all, she has returned to her family and her longtime friend, Gale. Yet nothing is the way Katniss wishes it to be. Gale holds her at an icy distance. Peeta has turned his back on her completely. And there are whispers of a rebellion against the Capitol - a rebellion that Katniss and Peeta may have helped create.

Much to her shock, Katniss has fueled an unrest she's afraid she cannot stop. And what scares her even more is that she's not entirely convinced she should try. As time draws near for Katniss and Peeta to visit the districts on the Capitol's cruel Victory Tour, the stakes are higher than ever. If they can't prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are lost in their love for each other, the consequences will be horrifying. (book blurb)

POTENTIAL SPOILER WARNING

I'll try not to but I just wanted to cover my ass in case I did. So you're been warned.

I swallowed The Hunger Games whole when I first read it and I've had my copy of Catching Fire since the end of May but I didn't get around to reading it until a couple of weeks ago (because I'm 9 different levels of OCD) and I don't know if I should have read it immediately after I read HG or waited even longer because goddamn it. Now I have to wait what, a year? before the third installment comes out? Shit.

I liked HG mainly because Collins isn't afraid to tear her characters new assholes. I love it when authors do that. The story was compelling, I cried at all the right moments (I'm a sap, shut up), I honestly felt for the characters and the writing was absolutely phenomenal because of all of those feelings. Any writer than can elicit such feelings in their readers is one that we need to hold on to and beg, plead and whine for them never to stop writing.

With Catching Fire, there was absolutely no disappointment. In fact, I thought it was better than HG. Yes, the edge is slightly taken off. HG was total shock and awe with what we were getting into. Gritty is putting it lightly. The Capitol people are fuckers with no moral code except to further feed their god complexes by using their subjects as pawns in their death games. So that shock has been tempered. We know, because of the ending of HG, that it's going to get worse but the impact wasn't as great this time around because we were expecting it. The element of surprise was gone.

That's ok. Because the poo still went hurling at the fan.

I wasn't a fan of the twist about mid-way through the book at first. For those that read it, you know what I'm talking about. I was kind of like, "really?" Kind of cyclical and I started questioning the author's motives. Why? What's the point of the repeat? And then I kept reading and the why became clear and the event grew on me and then I really started to feel for everyone involved. I just don't understand why they conceded. If all of the participants were that against what was going on that they made a public display of it, why not protest by inaction instead of participating? There was still very much a protest going on, which only answered my why question but it would have put the Capitol in just as precarious a position this time around like they were in HG, if not worse.

But I'll stop alluding.

When the Victory Tour started, prior to the twist, you can actually feel the dissent simmering from the pages and I really couldn't help but attach it to our current political situation. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that was the intent of the author but connections like that are going to be made regardless of what the author's intent was. It's not a strong connection but something I could feel not only going on on the page but in the world around me as well.

The way the people are treated is heart-wrenching. The public displays of enforced obedience and order are disgusting and you start to feel hopeless when everything starts putting up barriers around everyone. And fences start to get electrified. It seems like annihilation or submission is the only way to fight what's going on since the Capitol has such immense forces behind them.

But with the mention of District 13 brings hope. And conspiracy theories. I love conspiracy theories. It's not mentioned often, but often enough that it's ingrained this little seed of something in your brain. What's going on over there, if anything? Can we believe what people are saying about that place? Or should we believe the Capitol?

I'm not a big "shipper" so the relationships going on in the book (or any book, really) don't have all that much effect on me. I thought the forced relationship between Katniss and Peeta was sucky at best. I didn't like what the Capitol was making them do and I'm pretty sure that was the point. It sucks that Peeta's genuinely invested in the situation while Katniss is playing along but it creates for some great dramatic tension. At the same time, though, I wasn't too big of a fan of Katniss and Gale, not as a couple, anyway. I liked them as friends. They really complemented each other but beyond that, no. They'd make good warriors together. I can see Peeta being the voice with Gale and Katniss as the enforcers in the situation going on. But I think romance is the very last thing anyone in the book, or reading it, are concerned about. There's just way too much going on.

The book ends on such an INFURIATING note! Gah! And I have to wait a year to find out what happens??? *weep* The ending is just a segue into the next book and while I normally don't like those types of endings, it works here because what's going to happen next belongs in its own book. What happens in CF is the roiling the water does before it starts to boil. The next book will be the boiling point. If they're giving away ARCs of this one at the next BEA, I might have to make the 5 am stop there to get one.

The ending culminates at what's going to be a new beginning. Or a new cycle. We know what we want to happen in the next book but at the same time we know that Collins does nothing easily. If we want the good ending, the losses will be extremely high. If we don't get it, it'll be even worse. But there's so much at stake where we're left. We only know for sure what the status of a handful of characters are at the very end but we're missing out on other vital ones. Will they make it through the aftermath?

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock . . .