Yes, you read that right. In 2009, Bram Stoker’s great-grandnephew Dacre Stoker wrote a sequel to the famed and beloved Gothic novel with a man named Ian Holt.
I had hopes! I had such high hopes! Especially with an author named Dacre Stoker! That’s a Gothic author name right there!
Okay. Our favorite characters from the first novel (the band of heroes, as the book called them every ten pages or so to really hammer home the good things they did) have all become completely wrecked and unhappy; Dracula is now kinder, gentler, and just plain old misunderstood; everything is just so dramatic and everything is a crisis; and elements of the first novel were REWRITTEN. Look, I read through earlier reviews, and some people like the book and I get that. But how can you like the sequel and dislike the original? How can you like a sequel that changes certain aspects of the original? When Bram Stoker wrote his novel, it was in the Victorian Era, and this kind of shit was scary. They believed in superstition. I get that this was written in 2009, but it should have stayed truer to the time it’s supposed to take place in. So much violence for the sake of violence and not for the sake of the story.
UGH. This is why I shouldn’t read sequels to classic novels.