I picked up a copy of Dracula: The Un-Dead with a mixture of trepidation and anticipation, but when I got to the part in the dust jacket description which said that the story incorporated the historical Vlad Dracula, I was sold. I’ve had a fascination with the infamous warrior prince since I first learned of him in a library book back in elementary school, when I was about 9 or 10 years old. Since then, I’ve read and watched countless items that made any reference to him. I don’t know what it is. It’s not like I’m attracted to other violent, enigmatic figures in history. And my interest in him predates, and was arguably the catalyst for, my eventual fondness for vampires. It also predates his popularity, even though now most people have at least heard of Vlad and many are even more obsessed than I am. But while I don’t know why it is that I’m so fascinated, but I am, and so I couldn’t resist this book, a modern interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which takes place a quarter century after the events which transpired in the classic novel. Oh, and it’s written by his great-grandnephew, Dacre Stoker (who, I was a little surprised and disconcerted to learn from the author blurb, lives in South Carolina – I fully expected him to reside somewhere on the wild and rocky coast of England) and Ian Holt, a vampire aficianado and Dracula historian.

Okay. Confession time. I have not read Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Yes, I know, I can hear the gasps of shock and howls of protest right now. But honestly, it’s never appealed to me. I tried to read it in junior high, and by that time I’d seen more than my share of vampire movies and Stoker’s version didn’t hold much allure, since I knew the story already (or thought I did) from the celluloid versions. Admittedly, now I know different, but I’ve still never read it. That’s not to say I never will, but it’s not high on my list.

So I had to own up to not reading the classic since a lot of the negative criticism for Dracula: The Un-Dead is for taking the original story and changing things so much that it’s an insult to Stoker’s masterpiece. Well, as someone who hasn’t read Stoker’s book but familiar with the plot, I disagree. I thought the updates and reasons for their changes made sense and made the story that much more interesting, rather than just a straightforward tale of good versus evil. And I was always confused by the ending in the original Dracula, since the supposed death of Dracula seemed to go against what Stoker (and the folklore from which he drew inspiration) claimed would kill a vampire. A knife? Huh? The ending of the original Dracula seemed ripe for a sequel. So here we have one. Admittedly, there’s a lot going on in it, a bit too much for my liking. Besides continuing the original story, we also have storylines featuring Elizabeth Bathory and Jack the Ripper. Dracula himself is more a supporting character than the star of the show – which, for this fan, was the most disappointing aspect of the book. I didn’t really care about all that other stuff, even though they do a decent job of keeping things going at a fast pace.

The book is primed for a sequel, and the authors make reference to at least one being in the works in their endnotes. There are a few details referred to in the book that aren’t answered and the ending itself is most definitely set up for more to come. I hope Dracula returns to his rightful spot at center stage. And yes, I will be reading the sequel to the sequel.