Take a photo of a barcode or cover
charlottesometimes 's review for:
Dracula the Un-Dead
by Ian Holt
Judging by the self-congratulatory Authors' Note and sycophantic Afterword, Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt seem to believe this book to be not only a great literary work, but also a socio-historical milestone. They are so wrong it is difficult for me to express in words. It may even be a worse attempt at Dracula fanfiction than [b:Dracula in Love|7763145|Dracula in Love|Karen Essex|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1269749435s/7763145.jpg|10635930] Which is criticism indeed.
It's boring, badly plotted and frequently makes little or no sense. I am at a complete loss as to why Erzsébet Báthory, subtly characterised as a blood-crazed lesbian maniac, chose to suddenly travel from Hungary to London to kill several prostitutes in a manner completely unlike that of Vampires (in the Dracula sense) or her own previous murders, drawing massive attention to these killings even though she had presumably been managing to hide her murdering ways pretty effectively until then. I have no idea why Count Dracula decided to stop her by taking an age to sort out some property matters with a random solicitor,imprisoning him,then travelling to England and doing absolutely nothing other than further murder. I have no idea why, once Dracula was presumed dead, Erzsébet Báthory then waited until Quincy Stoker was of sufficient age to be our authors' protagonist before suddenly recommencing her ridiculously prominent murders.Most of all, I have no idea why Dracula chose to conceal himself from his relative using the cunning ruse of going under his own surname.
Not only was the plot terrible, the authors are given to using inane phrases such as "Dracula made Mina feel like a woman", a sentence which would probably be rejected from a Mills and Boon for being too hoary. Little or no research has been done, leading to errors such as Lucy's tomb moving from Highgate Cemetery to Hampstead Cemetery and then back again. The recasting of Dracula as a Christian Hero is nonsensical and badly managed. Finally the book is riddled with supposedly clever references to real-world events, each more painful than the last, culminating in the most asinine ending yet committed to a page. Horrible.
It's boring, badly plotted and frequently makes little or no sense. I am at a complete loss as to why Erzsébet Báthory, subtly characterised as a blood-crazed lesbian maniac, chose to suddenly travel from Hungary to London to kill several prostitutes in a manner completely unlike that of Vampires (in the Dracula sense) or her own previous murders, drawing massive attention to these killings even though she had presumably been managing to hide her murdering ways pretty effectively until then. I have no idea why Count Dracula decided to stop her by taking an age to sort out some property matters with a random solicitor,imprisoning him,then travelling to England and doing absolutely nothing other than further murder. I have no idea why, once Dracula was presumed dead, Erzsébet Báthory then waited until Quincy Stoker was of sufficient age to be our authors' protagonist before suddenly recommencing her ridiculously prominent murders.Most of all, I have no idea why Dracula chose to conceal himself from his relative using the cunning ruse of going under his own surname.
Not only was the plot terrible, the authors are given to using inane phrases such as "Dracula made Mina feel like a woman", a sentence which would probably be rejected from a Mills and Boon for being too hoary. Little or no research has been done, leading to errors such as Lucy's tomb moving from Highgate Cemetery to Hampstead Cemetery and then back again. The recasting of Dracula as a Christian Hero is nonsensical and badly managed. Finally the book is riddled with supposedly clever references to real-world events, each more painful than the last, culminating in the most asinine ending yet committed to a page. Horrible.