Dracula the Undead or: How I Learned to Start Worrying that Bram Stoker was Spinning in His Grave (spoilers included)

Bram Stoker's Dracula is my second favorite book of all time. (Number one on my list, if you were curious, is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, which you should go out and read, like, right now if you haven't already.) However, I always have a bit of trouble explaining exactly why I like it so much. Delivering profound literary critiques and analyses is definitely not my strong suit, seeing as how I pretty much Coles Notes-ed my way through high school English and the 2 fiction classes I took during my Bachelor's degree. But I do know what I like and what I don't like, and Dracula falls nicely into the realm of what I like. There's just something very classic and sophisticated about it that is exceedingly hard to find in novels these days. I've always marveled at how Stoker managed to take a series of disjointed letters and diary entries and interweave them into one cohesive and creative story. That's not to say, though, that the novel doesn't have its weak points. In fact, it's actually pretty dry and even tedious at parts until [SPOILER] Lucy Westenra dies, at which point the story just gets so compelling for me that I can't put it down until things like sleep and using the bathroom mandate that I take a break. The gist of what I'm saying, really, is that I love the book, which is why I was completely stoked (yes, I know that was lame, but it had to be done) when I first saw this in a bookstore back in October:



A freaking sequel to Dracula actually written by a Stoker (and some other guy who's not nearly as important because he's not a Stoker). After nearly shitting a brick of pure excitement I snatched it off the shelf and looked at the text on the book jacket. Here's some of what it had to say:

"Dracula the Undead is a fast-paced, historically rich sequel that is as frightening and atmospheric as the original. Based on plot threads and characters on Bram Stoker's notes that he compiled while writing and researching Dracula, as well as extensive research on the historical Prince Dracula and other well-known figures, here is a suspenseful, fascinating tale that will resonate with readers of the original as well as modern fans."

That was all the convincing I needed. I had to get that book. Unfortunately it cost $34, which would have been just one more blow to a bank account already beaten half to death by med school tuition. So in a rare moment of compromise I decided to place a hold on it at the public library, knowing that although I would have to wait longer to read it, at least I wouldn't have to spend money on it. Props for being fiscally responsible, right?

To fast-forward from October to the present, I picked up the book on December 17 and I've been working through it since. I'm currently about 13 chapters into it and...well, I'm just completely baffled. In fact, I'm tempted to go out, buy a Ouija board, and try to contact Bram Stoker from beyond the grave, just to see what he thinks of Dracula the Undead. A small and idealistic part of me would like to think that he's proud of his great-grandnephew, Dacre Stoker, for trying to honor and pay tribute to his greatest literary accomplishment. But a much larger, realistic part of me thinks that poor old Bram is probably trying to claw his way out of his grave this very moment to bitch slap Dacre senseless.

In other words, I'm not enjoying this book.

I know I can't judge Dracula the Undead in its entirety since I'm only 82 pages into it. But the fact that I've taken issue with the novel so early on can't be a good sign. Hell, I don't even know if I want to finish reading it. If the first few chapters are any indication, this book is 424 pages of Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt taking a steaming dump on some of my fondest childhood memories of reading Dracula. Sadly I can't unread what I've already read of Dracula the Undead, but I can still spare myself further misery, no?

But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself and should actually explain some of the reasons why I don't care for this novel. In fact, since it's the Christmas season, I'll start off with a few things that I actually like about it. I mentioned above that I'm a fan of Dracula's epistolary style, but one thing that it unfortunately does not lend itself well to is to really get into the heads and lives of the characters. This may seem to be a bit counterintuitive since diary entries and letters can very personal in nature, but each entry in Dracula had to pull the double duty of both revealing insight into the characters and advancing the plot. As a result, I sometimes felt that the elder Stoker had to sacrifice characterization in order to push the story forward, but he still ended up with a damned good product. In contrast, Dracula the Undead is written in the third person, but alternates from the perspective of Dr. Seward, Mina Harker, etc. The fact that the plot isn't confined to being told within letters and memorandums allows the younger Stoker to flesh out a character's thoughts and feelings a little more, and occasionally even provide some interesting bits of back story. When it comes to exploring the characters in more depth (and with regards to how they've changed 25 years after when Dracula was originally set), I thought Stoker and Holt did an interesting job with the character of Dr. Seward. In Dracula, Seward was portrayed as a clever but bumbling physician. Like, the very essence of uncool - you had to feel sorry for the guy. But do you know what Stoker and Holt turned him into in Dracula the Undead?

A morphine-addicted, total badass vampire hunter.

I'm not even kidding. The following is a passage from the book that highlights Seward's new-found brand of awesome. To set the scene, two vampire chicks are advancing towards the door of a room where Quincey Harker is hiding like a little girl, and they're about to strike:

Suddenly, a sandbag fell from above and hit the blonde [vampire], sending her chin into the floor. In that same instant, Seward swung down on one of the many ropes from the catwalks above. As he swooped close, he flicked a cross-etched bottle, splattering holy water onto the Women in White. Their skin sizzled and blistered. Their terrible wails echoed through the corridor.

While the Women in White ran off, flailing in pain, Seward dived toward Basarab's door and pounded on it. "Mr. Basarab! Save yourself!"

Okay, so Seward is no John McClane, but considering that the novel is set in the early 1900's, that's pretty badass for the times. Yet just as I'm getting all excited about the direction that Seward's character is taking, guess what Stoker and Holt decide to do to him, just for shits and giggles? (Beware, spoilers ahead.)

They kill him. And he doesn't even die an awesome death, like going down in a blaze of gunfire screaming, "Yippee ki-yay, motherf***er!". Instead he gets run over by a horse carriage driven by the vampire chicks as they escape. I swear, a part of me died after I read it. It was like a huge middle finger to physicians everywhere who crave badass role models to look up to, because all we have right now is the hematologist from Blade. Damn you, damn you, damn you, Stoker and Holt.

But wait! Our dynamic writing duo hasn't finished screwing things up character-wise! After the epic display of douchebaggery that was Seward's demise, we now need a new character. Time to throw Bram Stoker into the ring!

Yes, you read that correctly. Bram Stoker is actually a character in this novel. This makes absolutely no sense on more levels than I can describe. In no way did Bram Stoker try to insert himself into the original Dracula - the entire story was told through the works of characters like Jonathan and Mina Harker, Seward, Van Helsing, and so on. Yet in Dracula the Undead, Bram Stoker's character is supposedly a horror writer adapting the events of Dracula into a play, or some kind of BS like that. I mean, I guess I can understand Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt wanting to pay homage to Bram, but throwing in this confusing plot point is not the way to do it. The best way to pay homage to Bram would've been to not color Dracula the Undead seven shades of suck, but I think that ship has already sailed. Oh, Bram, you poor, poor bastard. I feel for you, I really do.

One last beef that I have with Dracula the Undead (so far) is the love triangle between Jonathan, Mina, and Dracula. If you remember Dracula and Mina actually being in love, then you're probably thinking of the film Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola. I'll come right out and say that I freaking love this film because it remained quite true to the original novel, save for Dracula and Mina's relationship and the back story behind it. And even though their relationship wasn't canon, I still enjoyed the portrayal of it in the movie (what can I say, an early 90's Gary Oldman makes me hot). Perhaps I didn't mind the Dracula/Mina romance in the film because the film never touted itself as an official, Stoker family-authorized movie adaptation - it was just Coppola's take on a great book. Dracula the Undead, on the other hand, goes around sporting words like "official sequel", yet doesn't even bother to take into account that Mina despised Dracula and declared that she would rather kill herself than become like him.

Early in Dracula the Undead (and by that I mean the book jacket), readers find out that Jonathan and Mina's marriage has gone belly up after the events of the original novel. However, Stoker and Holt don't allude as to why things didn't work out until Chapter 9, when Jonathan says to Mina, "I believe you want to have these dreams, Mina, that deep inside, you still desire him. You hold for him a passion I could never fulfill."

Now since the whole Dracula/Mina pairing didn't actually exist in the original novel, I could only assume from that line that Mina developed a crush on Dracula somewhere along the way. As to when that might have happened, I don't have a damned clue. As far as I can recall, the lengthiest interaction they had was the time where he drank her blood, forced her to drink his, and threatened to kill her husband, which certainly isn't a turn on in my book. So to get an idea of where Stoker and Holt were actually going with this plot twist, I flipped ahead to Chapter 16, where I found this literary gem explaining why Jonathan and Mina's marriage fell apart:

She [Mina] became insatiable in the bedchamber. Again, not something most men would complain about, but Jonathan found it physically impossible to keep up with her...While trying to make love to his wife, Jonathan discovered through a slip of his wife's tongue that it was Dracula who had taken Mina's virginity. Dracula, with centuries of experience, first introduced her to passion. He'd left such a profound impression on her that Jonathan, no matter how hard he tried, could never match it.

So basically, Dracula plowed Mina and was such a demon in the sack (both literally and figuratively) that Jonathan was never able to measure up, leaving the once-happy couple sexually dissatisfied and hating each other. When I first saw that excerpt I thought I might've wandered into an episode of Dr. Phil by mistake, but nope, I was still reading Dracula the Undead.

The irony of this is that Stoker and Holt know that they've strayed far, far beyond canon and they so much as acknowledge it and try to justify it in the Author's Note at the end of the book. Here's what they say:

We know there is a large segment of Dracula fans that have only seen the movies and have never read the book, and of course we wanted to inspire many of those folks to read Bram's original. Our dearest wish is all Dracula fans - of the book and of the films, will read and enjoy our sequel. To this end there are several areas which we felt that film fans had so embraced and had become so ingrained into Dracula legend that we could not overlook them. To the literary purists we apologize, but we feel this is a necessary concession, made in the hope of once and for all harmonizing all Dracula fans.

...As for the Mina-Dracula romance, Dacre and I agreed that this would have to be handled with greater care than in any of the films, and deal with the fact that Bram never clearly wrote that a romance occurred.

I couldn't stop shaking my head after I read that. Stoker and Holt will never be able to harmonize all Dracula fans, and by trying to cater to the film masses by making "concessions", they effectively alienated an audience who loved Bram's original work for what it was, and who longed for a proper sequel more than anyone else. And while I can grudgingly appreciate their intention to want to please the fans, I would've much rather they tried to honor Bram Stoker's work and memory by staying true to what he wanted, since we wouldn't even have Dracula without him.

(Not to mention that I would take a conservative Dracula the Undead free of shock value any day of the week rather than a Dracula the Undead that may one day be thought of as "OMG, you guys, it's totally like Bella and Edward, but they have sex and everything!")

Ugh. Well, that more or less concludes my rant about Dracula the Undead. If you're interested in reading Dracula (the one by the talented Stoker), there's a link for it here. Happy reading!