Customer Reviews for

Dracula: The Un-Dead

Average Rating 3.5
( 121 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(31)

4 Star

(28)

3 Star

(28)

2 Star

(16)

1 Star

(18)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

Don't Wait to Read This!

All I can say is OH MY GOODNESS!!! I have been debating since this book was released last year whether or not to buy it. I saw the mixed reviews, and was torn for months. I kept saying I would read this after I finish The Lost Symbol (which I just can not get into). ...
All I can say is OH MY GOODNESS!!! I have been debating since this book was released last year whether or not to buy it. I saw the mixed reviews, and was torn for months. I kept saying I would read this after I finish The Lost Symbol (which I just can not get into). While Stoker may not have the most original ideas, the way he uses historical events and legends in this tale is thrilling. I was literally thrilled from start to finish. This book is a must-add to any avid reader's collection!

posted by mdmalonemsw on February 11, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

13 out of 17 people found this review helpful.

A Classic Perversion

This book completely perverts Bram Stoker's masterpiece by being touted as a "sequel" to something as iconic as 'Dracula.' 'The Un-Dead,' as well as its authors, can be described with one word: arrogant. It practically steps on the original novel in order to establish...
This book completely perverts Bram Stoker's masterpiece by being touted as a "sequel" to something as iconic as 'Dracula.' 'The Un-Dead,' as well as its authors, can be described with one word: arrogant. It practically steps on the original novel in order to establish a laughable mythos of its own, and is therefore riddled with inconsistencies in the eyes of any true fan of the original masterpiece. Dacre Stoker isn't fit to bear the Stoker surname. He should never have been allowed near a keyboard, let alone a publisher. As for Ian Holt, I am at a loss to sufficiently describe the degree of my distaste for him, except to say that he is the literary equivalent of a grave-robber. If you choose to read this book, consider it not as a sequel, but as a mediocre alternative universe tale with story lines that are predictable and characters that are dimensionless.

posted by Monster_Hunter on October 31, 2009

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 28 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2
  • Posted October 15, 2011

    Sorry I bought the book

    Although the authors can put words and sentences together in a skillful fashion, the story line was a great disappointment. The book takes the original Dracula and completely turns the story around. It had that all to contemporary tone that blurs the line between right and wrong. The authors went so far as to make the evil attractive and the good pitiful. I am glad I bought a hard copy, so that it doesn't reside on my nook.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 30, 2012

    I Also Recommend:

    Let me start off with this, THIS IS NOT A TRUE SEQUEL. While it

    Let me start off with this, THIS IS NOT A TRUE SEQUEL. While it does contain characters from Dracula, it also contains the author (written in a rather unflattering way). the book also contains some of the elements of the movies (Particularly some of the cheesier ones). For instance, the simple fact that Dracula cannot be killed like any other Vampire. Also elements of Dracula: 2000, are also present, but I won't mention what for those who would like to read the book.

    That said, I don't disapprove of the psuedo-sequel idea and think, if it had been done better, would have been decent. I feel that this book cannot be compared with the classic, a true example of great gothic horror, it is fun as a stand alone book. It has decent story telling and some creative ideas which were fun to read. It will never be the classic piece of literature that the original was, but is more of an entertaining and fun story that will satisfy those who enjoy horror stories.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 8, 2012

    LIGHTMIST TO SCOURGE

    Please go to the third result for ate. Do you rember me love?

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 9, 2012

    Scourge

    Whoa we did not kill any kits

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted January 25, 2011

    A good read, but ultimately, unfulfilling, even disappointing.

    Dracula: the Un-dead, by Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt, is an entertaining story, but fails to deliver completely. Being a very strong fan of Bram Stoker's Dracula, causes me to be more disappointed than I would normally be.

    Firstly, its strengths. The novel is very well researched, capturing a realistic London and Paris of 1912 (the only exception was the cringe-worthy of several uses of the word 'fix' for one of the character's injection of morphine). The gothic atmosphere is tangible and enjoyable.

    Another strength is the clever use of explaining that Bram Stoker's Dracula was, in fact, a novel, and the truth was somewhat variant to it. Aside from mixing reality and fiction in an interesting way, it allowed some 'legitimate' doctoring of facts to suit the sequel. I should point out, however, that this 'doctoring' process is a two-edged sword, and devotees of Dracula must be satisfied with the variance. To mix metaphors, they trod a very fine line.

    Characters were well developed and the idea of the destruction of the surviving heroes, all in unique ways, was also admirable. And believable.

    Now, the disappointments.

    Firstly, I believe that the authors tried to do too much. Much too much. They wanted surprises and twists and created an ennobled, non-intrinsically-evil Dracula in counterpoint to the original novel (but curiously, counterpoint to all bar Mina in the 'real' history of twenty-five years previously). They even through in a trip on the Titanic. It was overkill and it undermined the Gothic-ness of the story, and also diminished the suspension of disbelief.

    Dracula was the king hit when it came to failure. Aside from the intention to create a story that was unique, unpredictably, it was not good enough to work against the immense portrayal of loss of soul and darkness in Dracula's heart. He was old and gnawed at his own heart for too long and these images and perceptions of the count were shredded by the character portrayed in the sequel. I sort of understand what the authors were trying to mold, but it did not work, not entirely. Unfortunately, 90% is as good as 0% when inevitably comparing this novel with the masterpiece written by Bram.

    I enjoyed the book but it didn't grab me, and there were moments when I really felt betrayed. The ending of the novel was simply a concentration of those failures... and then there was the Titanic. Yik.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 31, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    Bridget's Review

    As a Dracula fan, I knew I had to get my hands on this book. I was a little disappointed because this book had the ability to be great but I found it to be mediocre. I think it would have been better if it wasn't a follow up to Dracula and stood alone.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted July 9, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    I Also Recommend:

    In short, an excellent book, but not a sequal to the original.

    I found this to be at worst a unneeded sequel but at best it is a well written book. The evolution of some of the characters were very well done and the adding of another vampire is also a interesting twist. the part that I didnt get was the turning of the character Dracula into a hero and turning Abraham Van Helsing, one of my favorite characters of the original, into a vampire near the end, it was ironic, but then he started saying how vampires are good as well as evil, while in the original book vampires are because of deals with lucifer. If I may make a suggestion, they should have made Dracula still a villian and make him and Bathory fight each other because of hatred over each other, not becuase dracula is the warrior of god, and ditch the I am your father scene. I also enjoyed some of the new characters in this book and thought they were well thought out. I dont get some of the changes to the powers of the vampires, but some of the given explainations for the powers are well thought out. If you are a Dracula purist this book isnt something for you, if your a casual reader, then check this out of the library before you buy it.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 27, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    Average book

    I am in the process of reading this book and have to say it is interesting in some parts but drags in others. The story throws us 25 years into the future. Mina is still married but it is on the rocks and her son, Quincey, wants to quit law to become an actor. Dr. Seward has become a drug addict hooked to morphine and Van Hesling is now thought to be Jack the Ripper. They all come back together to battle a female vampire on the loose who is causing problems. Just as the story gets going here comes the loop.

    Apparently this book wants to take us on second story on the making of the play Dracula and the backstory involved with it. The authors try to interweave it into the current story but one begins to think why leave the orginal story? Why not stay with the current story? If you can get past this it is an interesting read.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted February 8, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    Is Dracula really an agent of "Good"?

    The year is 1912, 25 years after the death of Dracula, and the heroic group who pursued and killed the vampire have gone their separate ways. Seward is now a morphine addict obsessed with tracking down vampires, Lucy's fiancé Arthur is in a loveless marriage, Jonathan frequently leaves Mina to seek out prostitutes and Van Helsing is an infirm old man. So begins the sequel to Bram Stoker's infamous novel Dracula, Dracula: The Un-Dead written by Stoker's great-grandnephew, Dacre Stoker.

    In the opening pages, Seward is pursuing Countess Bathory, a female vampire. He watches from a hidden spot as the vampire and her "Women in White" kill an innocent young woman and feast on her blood. After the gory meal, Seward is discovered and the vampires flee. Seward follows them to Paris, where we soon meet Quincey, the son of Jonathan and Mina. Quincey wants to abandon his studies for the stage and is encouraged by Basarab, a well-known actor.

    While Quincey follows his idol Basarab from place to place, Seward is found dead. Next Jonathan is killed. Both men are murdered in ghastly ways, reminiscent of the style in which Dracula killed his victims. Has Dracula returned?

    When I first saw this book, I was excited to see a sequel to Dracula, one of my favorite books. Noting, however, that Dracula: The Un-Dead was written by Dacra Stoker, a relative of Bram Stoker, I was concerned that the author was hired to write the book simply because of his last name. Could he write? While the book won't win any awards, the writing is acceptable and the story is reasonably well-paced. It's the story line with which I had problems.

    The first hint of problems came in the chapter where we meet Bram Stoker, a frustrated director working on the play "Dracula." I realize the author wants to pay homage to Bram (it's obvious from his author's notes at the end), but this is going a bit too far. Further, Dracula plays a secondary role in this tale, particularly during the first half of the story. Dracula: The Un-Dead begins more as story of Mina versus Bathory, a vampire who is determined to destroy Mina. It should be mentioned too, that Mina has maintained her youthful appearance because Dracula's blood flows through her veins. Is Dracula her true love? Is Quincey their love child?

    Perhaps more disturbing than the above is Dracula's changed nature. "Dracula was indeed a killer, but he was not cruel" (pg.322) and in Dracula's words, "Van Helsing tried to secure his place in history by naming me a villain through Stoker's pen" (pg. 353).

    If you're a diehard fan of the original, you're apt to find that this sequel transforms the characters and the story linetoo much. Could Dracula really be working for God, "doling out God's justice"? If you enjoy all sorts of variations on the Dracula theme, then you may find this book to your liking.

    Quill says: There's plenty of action, but the many changes to the story may not appeal to fans of the original.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 3, 2009

    okay diversion

    I bought this book for travel reading. It kept my interest but was not stellar. It does not "hold a candle" to the original Dracula.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 2, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted August 28, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 15, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted March 13, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 8, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted May 4, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 19, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted May 30, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted September 19, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 25, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 28 review with 3 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2