Feminist Dracula (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

The NoHo Arts Center is a very nice theatre complex on Magnolia, where I saw a splendid Dracula way back in 2009. Now a new adaptation of Bram Stoker's most famous novel just opened, a Dracula explicitly referred to as a "feminist take.' Upon hearing of this, I was intrigued!

Elsewhere I've described my reaction to the script. This review focuses upon the specific production happening right now in North Hollywood under the auspices of Theatre 68 which commissioned this script.

Begin with the space. It caught my imagination instantly, not least because of an imaginative, even compelling pre-show (presumably the work of director Sohia Watt). Frankly, the rest of the show had a lot to live up to after following that! 

At times it even did.

Sometimes it did not.

Frankly a big part of the blame for this last (which overstates it a bit, to be honest) lies in the script (see link above) which gives barely a hint as to the characters of Arthur (Diego Maureira) and Quincey (Kenneth James) or their mutual love interest Lucy (Ariel Hart), and a tiny bit more regarding Jack Seward (Jude Evans). Cannot blame the actors for not being given much of chance to show what they might do.  Given how the rest of the cast measured up, I must conclude all the actors were of the same quality, but given unequal attention by the writer.

This Dracula belongs to the character of Mina (Rachel Zink) , with  interestingly many of the other major characters taking turns as enemy and ally to her.  One measure of the actors who play Jonathan Harker (Jordan Wall), Professor Van Helsing (David Caprita), Dracula himself (Robert Homer Mollohan), Mrs. Westenra (Perry Smith) and the bug-eating lunatic Renfield (Kristen Lerner) is how all of them succeed in shifting between those roles. Overall, very well!

Mollohan lacked a little consistency, but that also seems inherent in the nature of how this play interpret the character--as a chameleon in some fundamentally emotional manner. He genuinely seemed to be enjoying himself, though, and in a very refreshing change of pace attempted at no time to channel Bela Lugosi, Frank Langella nor Gary Oldman! Bravo! Even his deliciously maniacal laughter proved motivated!

Wall managed the curious balance of Harker, between strength and weakness, anger and tenderness with rather a lot of skill. I never liked him, but then I don't think we were supposed to. Felt sorry for the guy, though.

Caprita's Van Helsing was such an over-the-top misogynist he could easily have been done as a villain from a melodrama. Yet instead he came across as very real, very malevolant in  his way, and yet able enough to prove a useful ally. Sometimes.

Lerner of course got the plum role. Renfield is to Dracula what Gollum is The Lord of the Rings. Small wonder David Manners (who played Harker in the Lugosi film) wanted to play that role--and at least one film adaptation conflated the parts of Harker and Renfield together! Again, the actor involved avoided a trap. Too often in playing madness the temptation exists to create a Batman-eque villain. Lerner avoided that, and (no less impressively) showed a complex set of relationships with those in her time onstage.

Zink really carried the night, though, and did so with a fairly ugly journey of self-discovery. One of the tragedies inherent in this adaptation is the image of two different futures Mina can see embodied in Renfield and in the bitter, almost heartless Mrs Westenra. Because although feminist, this play does not take a Xena-esque approach by turning Mina into a fount of wisdom who puts the vampire lord out of his misery (this has been done a few times, most famously in Bram Stoker's Dracula as well as the Wildhorn musical). Rather, this version is more of a dystopia, a look into a society whose treatment of women makes savagry weirdly attractive.

Along the way, much credit must go to the Succubi (Caroline Henry, Kara Gibson, Isabel Wagner, Anna Yosin) who function not quite as a Greek Chorus--mostly because they rarely speak while literally becoming the set as often as not. It proved a wonderful conceit, giving a dreamlike immediacy to the proceedings!

Yet the nitpicker in me also wants to point out the English accents distractingly inconsistent. Generally the cast did a fine job in that respect (which deserves some applause right there) but the sudden pronunciations shifting from English to American did prove distracting--at least to my ear.

Performances of Dracula are Fridays & Saturdays at 8pm and Sundays at 7pm through November 1, 2015. Tickets are $25.

KARAOKEAPOCALYPSE (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

Kinda/sorta. Actually, a show like this is very difficult to spoil, because it changes.  But I'll get to that in a moment.

Remember when  you were maybe thirteen years old? And you had this great idea of a party? One where you'd get to celebrate all those horror movies and monster comics and weird stuff you loved?  Of course you didn't have any money, but if only there were some basement or attic room--a place to set up some black lights and enact some really cool creepy stuff from the Halloween Haunted House last year, but this time with some friends who really understood?

I never had that party, for a whole host of reasons. Probably only a very few of us ever did. But this show--Karaokeapocalypse at ZJU--is exactly that event!

We have a cast in ordinary, grungy clothes, wearing ghoulish if generic makeup. We have spooky music to dance to--sung live and sometimes we the audience joined in (at one point given makeshift musical instruments). Action figures re-enacted a cheesy movie, followed by a werewolf puppet singing a song. Games and dance. Posters used to set the mood exactly the way we imagined doing so way back in our early teens.

But I cannot give you a cast list per se, because each performance will have a different cast! Each show will consist of different, fresh, fun and (yeah, let us say it) a little bit sophmoric "acts." Which is the whole point! In Australia, where December falls squarely in the heat of summer, there's a holiday called Christmas in July.  That is really what this show ends up as in many ways--Halloween in Spring!

Therein lies the key to the essential question every theatre review seeks to answer--should you go to see this show?  It all depends on how much you like Halloween. Does this kind of party sound like fun, keeping in mind it isn't run by a bunch of barely-teenagers who don't really know what they're doing? No, these folks are theatre professionals and having a great time.  You're invited to come along.  To listen to recordings of Vincent Price and sing "They're Coming to Take Me Away" and just relax.  Halloween revisited.

Me, I had a blast!


Karaokeapocalypse plays Friday nights at 11pm until April 10, 2015 at Zombie Joe's Underground Theatre Group, 4850 Lankershim Blvd (across the street from KFC, just south of the NoHo sign) North Hollywood CA 91601. Tix are $15 and you can get reservations by called (818) 202-4120 or by going to zombiejoes.tix.com

New Broadway Dracula!

A quarter-century ago, Frank Langella starred in a vivid Broadway production of the same play that pretty much created Bela Lugosi's career as a movie star.  This December, a new version of the same play will open, one I'm entering contests to win a chance to go see (check the links below to take your own chance).  Paul Alexander is directing, with George Hearn (probably best known for playing the lead in the national tour of the original Broadway production of Sweeney Todd) as Van Helsing, and former child star Thora Birch (of American Beauty fame as well as many other films) as the female lead, Lucy Seward.

This specific show has cast a well-known Italian stage actor Michel Alteri as the title character.  He's a very handsome man, which makes sense given the dynamics of the play (as opposed to the novel).  Mind you, this is also an interesting cast by any standards.  One suspicion that comes to my mind is that the play is set in the 1930s, and some aspect of that era might be explored.

Performances are due to begin December 14, 2010 at the Little Shubert Theatre (442 West 42nd Street).

Here is their Facebook page.

Here is their Twitter page.

Here is their YouTube page.

Night of the Living Puppets

My latest guest blog for vampires.com...

Pinocchio the Vampire Slayer was a 2010 graphic novel, with a sequel in the works. The title makes a weird kind of sense, given that the titular hero is in effect a living weapon against the undead. But another thought comes to mind almost immediately.
Would Pinocchio have to fight vampires who were also puppets?

My Guest Blogs!

I've been guest blogging lately at vampires.com and thought to share some of them...

Children of the Night is about child vampires and what their portrayal may tell us about ourselves.

What To Do With Dracula? examines the way we seem to have wrung everything we can out of the book and character--or have we?

Dracula Mash Up!!!

Okay, this is silly but I'm in a silly mood!  Suppose we had all the film versions of Dracula from which to mix and match the best in each role--who would we chose?  Actually, since this is my blog, the question is who would I choose?  Something of a Rorshach test actually...

I'll admit that to my mind Peter Cushing remains my first and most vivid image of Van Helsing, perhaps most oddly in some ways because (unlike most portrayals) he seems to be presented as an Englishman, even though of course the character is Dutch!  On the other hand, he has a German accent in the novel so go figure.  To bb sure there have been other great Van Helsings, including Sir Anthony Hopkins but Cushing is the learned vampire hunter in my mind's eye.  Probably because he was the first, when I saw Hammer's Brides of Dracula way back when during an afternoon movie.  Likewise the best Mina I've ever seen was Lupita Tovar in the Spanish-language version of Dracula made at the same time as Lugosi's version (but at night). Long thought lost, the missing reel of this almost-forgotten classic was found  in the film archives of Cub

a and can now be purchased on DVD.  Okay, that character's name was "Eva" but she was obviously supposed to be Mina--she was best friends with Lucy, engaged to Juan...er...Jonathan Harker, was the vampire's second victim, etc.  Jonathan Harker is in many ways the least interesting role in the whole book, since he exists as little more than a good-looking leading man who is tempted by the Brides then dutifully does what he's told by others, holding his wife's hand half the time.  Or so it would seem.  When you look at Colin Redgrave's version of him in the 1968 BBC Dracula one sees a bit more potential--and all that stuff is indeed present in the novel.  He clearly feels very strongly about the Count and has some

mixed feelings about Mina, although he does love her, and is one of two sufferers of mental illness in the story.  True, in that version they were giving me the Renfield-role but Redgraves' remains the single most vivid Jonathan Harker to my sensibilities.  The same version gave us Susan George as Lucy Westenra (oddly re-named Western for some reason).  Frankly, one cannot help but wish after seeing her in this take that she hadn't been hired by Hammer to appear in some of their vampire classics.  She blended the innocence and flirtatiousness of Lucy the human girl with the dark glamour and sensual nature of the vampire in a way that grabbed

the attention and kept it.  Just as Francis Ford Coppola's ironically named Bram Stoker's Dracula gave us IMHO very nearly the epitome of both Dr. Jack Seward with Richard E. Grant in the role, and Bill Campbell as the American cowboy Quincey Morris.  Yet the Arthur Holmwood who remains most firmly fixed in my memory is from an interesting but not-quite-there version by the BBC in 2006--in the case the actor Dan Stevens as a syphlitic aristocrat (inherited from his father) horrified by all his hopes and dreams about to be yanked from him by an unspeakable (and unspoken-of) practical joke set up by Fate.  It was so interesting to see this figure portrayed not as an epitome of proper English values but a well-meaning yet weak victim of Victorian hypocrisy.  Likewise Seward, the eldest of the three suitors as an somewhat unscrupulous obsessive, coupled with a Quincey with little sophistication but a heart of gold proved both interesting and pleasing...

The Three Suitors of Lucy

Speaking (or writing) of threes, one can hardly think of that number and the story of Transylvania's most famous nobleman without summoning images of Dracula's Brides--an unholy, lusting trinity who have fueled many a young man's dreams (and more than a few young lady's as well, surely).  Again, I chose from Bram Stoker's Dracula one such, in this case one of the most beauteous creatures on this Earth--actress Monica Bellucci.  From the afore-mentioned Hammer studio production Brides of Dracula (which is technically not about Dracula per se) the image of Andree Melly continues to haunt my own musings about female vampires, and the one detail of quality in an otherwise wretched motion picture called Old Dracula is the almost cameo of Linda Hayden as a new recruit into the Count's harem.

The Brides of Dracula!

We are now left with two major roles yet to be cast from all those who've done them on screen before now.  Clearly the lesser of the two, Renfield remains a plum role.  What actor worth his salt doesn't find the idea of playing a bug-eating madman desperate for yet terrified of redemption at least tempting?  This one was close, because I really loved Tom Waits in the role, but when push comes to shove the performance of Jack Shepherd (no, not the

Lost character!) in BBC's 1977 Count Dracula the most effective and moving.  Of all the Renfields, he most touched my heart.  So naturally he is my choice.

Which brings us to our lead.  Looking back on the rest of the cast, methinks we can see a certain retro feel to the whole thing, yes?  And yet my own sensibilities (reflected herein) are modern.  So my final casting choice rests on a technicality.  He has not in fact played Count Dracula.  But he did play a real vampire recruited to pretend to be Count Dracula

for purposes of a motion picture.  Close enough for jazz, and the purposes of my blog.  So here is Willem Dafoe as an unnamed undead persuaded by F.W.Murnau to play the title character in the silent classic Nosferatu.  This film--Shadow of the Vampire.

Until some movie-making software leaps ahead by a quantum step or two, your imagination is the only place where you can see this movie.  Alas.  But on the other hand, that shouldn't be too hard, should it?  Take a stroll through this dream-version of Bram Stoker's novel why don't you?  Tell me what you think...  Or share your own ideas.

Enter freely of your own will...

New Dracula!!!

This is exciting to me. I should explain--one of my projects this year is getting a new web series off the ground. One hero for me in this effort is the staff of The Guild, but another is a gentleman who goes by the name Theodore Trout. He is the star and evidently guiding force behind an amazing, original production of Bram Stoker's novel. Dracula, Lord of the Damned looks like it was done on a budget that would pay for maybe a nice car, but with a startling imagination behind it (as well as lots of elbow grease).

In essence, the conceit of this production is that Dracula truly is the Lord of the Damned--the literal anti-christ who feels himself a great benefactor. After all, does he not bring truth and eternal life?

Well, he believes he does.

This version fairly drips with atmosphere, a dream like quality in virtually every frame. The costumes and sets cannot help but be rudimentary (see comment about the budget above) but one hardly realizes this. For one thing the camera work almost defines simple but effective. When Harker first approaches Castle Dracula, for example, it is by boat and the interplay of Harker's POV approaching landfall (with a suitably erie, ancient staircase) as well as a shot from land showing the boat bringing him is so simple--yet works extremely well.

Kudos also to the retention of virtually every major character. Usually, Lucy's three suitors are reduced to one or two, often none. This, like Bram Stoker's Dracula and the BBC adaptation with Louis Jourdain, includes the whole trinity. As far as I know this is also the sole version that ever has had Renfield the object of Victorian-era brain surgery (as he is in the original novel).

Is it perfect? No. The biggest weakness is the cast. When compared to some of the fine performers who have taken on these roles in the past--Kate Nelligan, Gary Oldman, Christopher Plummer, etc.--the repertory company here suffers. It isn't that they do a poor or even mediocre job. Not at all! In fact, they manage to capture the style of the film with their performances very well. But honestly, this Van Helsing is no Anthony Hopkins nor this Dracula a Denholm Elliott. Yet, they are good if overwhelmed by the style of the production.

Below you will find a trailer. You can get a lot more information (including other teasing clips and a way of ordering a copy) at Mr. Trout's YouTube Channel.

Gothic Fiction: What to Look For

Behold my second guest blogger and her post about Goth fiction...Bethany North (as gothic a personal name as one could ask for, in my humble opinion...)

Gothic Fiction: What to Look For

If you are a Gothic fiction fan, you may be realizing that its popularity is having a serious comeback. If you're new to the Gothic fiction genre, you may be wondering what characterizes Gothic fiction, and exactly what to look for in the Gothic fiction genre.

In short, Gothic fiction is the popular choice of the horror genre, and it was born in the late 18th century. It is under the hood of the Romantic movement that hoped to evoke strong emotions within the reader, especially in the case of fear based on the supernatural. The main distinction to Gothic fiction is its atmosphere, where it will build suspense throughout the novel to create apprehension and anxiety within the reader. Much of this can relate to mystery, the supernatural, and even family curses. Of course, Gothic fiction wouldn't be quite as popular without the romantic element, which is why readers of both genders are often attracted to this fiction genre.

Gothic fiction is also an ideal choice for anyone interested in the past eras, especially explored historically through a novel. This can often create a dark and oppressive feel to Gothic fiction, especially if it takes place in medieval times. Many modern Gothic fiction novels still follow this trend of being set in past eras, especially in Victorian or medieval times. These same Gothic settings are often expressed in film and music, making the Gothic fiction genre a popular leader in the media industry.

If you are ready to take a dive into Gothic fiction, here are some of the top choices to get you started:

• Dracula by Bram Stoker
• Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
• The Italian by Ann Radcliffe
• The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
• Interview With the Vampire by Anne Rice

And that is just the tip of the iceberg! Gothic fiction encompasses a strong genre with a number of novel choices, so whether you are hoping for mystery, horror, or the supernatural, you can expect all of that and more.


Bethany North's specialty site for all coffee needs and Bunn coffee makers filters can be found at The Coffee Bump.

Distaff Dracula Cast

Just a bit of wild speculation for the sake of fun...

There was an excerpt of a play I saw on YouTube some months ago, a production of Dracula wherein all the characters' genders were switched. Certainly an intriguing idea, and with more than a touch of promise. So it got me thinking (always a bit of a dangerous thing).

Suppose a young female solicitor (Joanna Harker) traveled to the wilds of Transylvania to meet a wealthy Countess, one who wishes to discretely purchase properties in London. But said Countess is a vampire, with harem of undead Grooms that haunt the crumbling castle. She means to travel to fresh hunting grounds, and along the way will feast upon the blood of this young solicitor's fiancee (William Murray) as well as his best friend (Louis Westenra). The latter is a bit of a womanizer, and three of his conquests--Dr. Jacqueline Seward, Lady Aurelia Holmwood and the American Cathy Morris--unite to try and save him. Even with the help of occult scholar Beatrice Van Helsing they fail and Louis rises from the grave as a vampire, at first a hunter of girl children until they put him to rest. Then they all must find the source of the contagion, the strangely melancholy Countess Dracula herself.

Has possibilities, don't you think?

In fact, doesn't this scenario shake up a lot of what we expect from the whole dynamic? If Louis Westenra starts feeding on little girls, the specter of pedophilia rears its ugly head--one wonders why it doesn't feel that way if Lucy goes around biting boy children? Likewise, in writing the plot description above it seemed natural to call Louis a womanizer, as befits a man with up to three fiancees! Who then cheats on them!

This isn't a long post, just a bit of fun speculation to let readers know I've not abandoned my blog. If you've anything to add, feel free to do so. For example, who would you cast as Countess Dracula? One of the first names that come to my own mind is Neve McIntosh, whom I admire very much after seeing her perform opposite Jonathan Rhys Myers in Gormenghast. But I saw Kelly Reilly as Joanna Harker. Likewise I almost immediately imagined Pauline Moran (Miss Lemon on Agatha Christie's Poirot) as Dr. Seward and Sophie Winkleman as Lady Aurelia Holmwood. Methinks Rupert Penry-Jones would be a fine Louis Westenra (the cad!). What about William Murray? How about Rupert Evans?

"Young Dracula" (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

Young Dracula was a show on CBBC (i.e. Children's BBC) that sadly lasted but two seasons. This fact continues to depress me. Being quite the fan of vampire fiction, I'm pretty familiar with most vampire-related television series. Most, let us face it, end up poor at best. Rather than go on about the mediocre ones (yes, I'm talking about YOU Moonlight), here is a post of praise for a minor masterpiece. That it was a children's show just shows how US programing continues to think children are dumb and need protecting from the truth -- with much of recent political history in this country as one result.

But I digress...

In the present day, Count Dracula wearies of one too many heavily armed mob of peasants, deciding to relocate to England. He leaves it to his eleven-year-old son Vladimir (who understands thing like the internet) to find a suitable castle. Hence the Count, daughter Ingrid, son Vladimir and their grotesque manservant Renfield end up in Stokely, UK -- a very ordinary large town or small city with a castle on the hill in the center of town. Okay, so far so good, if not particularly impressive in the originality department (an overblown value in our culture, at least IMHO).

What follows is a lot more compelling, entertaining and clever than Kindred: The Embraced ever dreamt of becoming.

The series focus is young Vladimir, who doesn't want to become a vampire at all. In this world, vampires have relatively normal children who gradually grow more vampiric in their teens. On their sixteenth birthday, they look into the family's Blood Mirror and see their vampire selves, which emerges and joins with them (hence the lack of reflection -- a nice bit of lore, that). Vlad would do almost anything to avoid this, which horrifies his father no end. Yet the Count's fifteen-year-old daughter Ingrid is everything he could hope for--cunning, cruel, eager to earn her self-proclaimed title "Princess of Darkness"--but since she's a girl, he doesn't care. At all. One of the running gags (that is also kinda heartbreaking) is how she continues to try and earn her father's approval, to no avail.

Returning to Vlad, once in Stokely he makes two friends. Robin Branagh is Vlad's own age while his sister Chloe is a little younger, and a child prodigy (she reads Egyptian hieroglyphics at age twelve). Robin adores vampires, goes to school in a cape, tries sleeping upside down like a bat, and is one of the few people to figure out the newcommers are in fact undead (many assume the Count, interestingly, to be a rock star). He becomes Vlad's very best friend, and if you get a Harry/Ron/Hermione vibe from all this, you are not alone (I personally felt Chloe had a little bit of a crush on Vlad, but that is a matter of opinion).

Truth to tell, even breaking down all the characters and their relationships in the show would be a lengthy post in and of itself. More, all that background remained consistent. Even more, the characters changed, demonstrating a complexity that lots of series about grownups never manage. Vlad, for example, rather likes the powers he starts to exhibit in the second season, and has profoundly mixed feelings about his sister and dad. Ingrid, for all her haughty (and hilarious) cruelty, shows a startlingly tender side at odd moments (when Robin's parents give her a gift, for example). Then there's the Count and his estranged wife, probably the most shamelessly evil woman in the world. He both adores and loathes her, precisely for that reason despite (or because of) being the target of so many of her schemes.

Let us make some things clear. The show is funny, but the humor arises more from the interplay of characters than the overt gags (although those are pretty giggle-worthy). Also the show is aimed at children. No nudity, no sex (although a lot of flirting, some of it a tad steamy), most of the violence is off-screen, the plots tend to be simplistic and the secondary characters are nearly always played for laughs. Everything is exaggerated enough to be not quite real, but consistent enough to seem that way on its own level.

Episodes included such relatively mundane matters as report cards (the Count was furious that all the teachers liked Vlad, and was mildly proud that Ingrid was described as a force of malice and chaos in the classroom) and the esoteric, like a quest to find an object which would "cure" vampirism. Other plots involved Robin and Vlad falling for the same girl (and an disturbingly poweful cologne that makes one irresistible to women), Ingrid falling in love, a visit by the Count's brother and his equally dysfunctional brood, the constant attempts by the local woodshop teacher (named Van Helsing) to prove vampires existed (said attempsts often involving cross-dressing for not-quite-adequately explained reasons), etc.

Sadly, the show ended because CBBC lacked the funds for a third season. After 27 episodes and a cliffhanger, the series ceased production. The lead, Gerran Howell, has probably grown up too much over the last two years to pick up where the series left off. As far as I know, the show has not yet been released onto DVD but one can still watch it on YouTube if you look for it. Please do! The effort is worth it!

And just for fun, here are some of the "fan videos" associated with the show. Enjoy!

"Bringing Sexy Back"


Robin and Vlad, friends


"Requiem for a Dream" (is there any fandom that hasn't used this music?)


About Vlad...


About Ingrid Dracula...


A fanfic crossover...

Casting Choices

Just for fun, I was going to offer what could be some fun speculation -- namely some roles I would like to see played by specific actors.

• David Tennant as Renfield in Dracula. Other than the King Vampire himself, this really is the juiciest part and when given the chance actors have managed to do wonders with it. Tennant is one who'd be marvelous at it.
• Michelle Trachtenberg in a modern-day retelling of Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey. Much as "Clueless" was really "Emma," methinks it would be a hoot to see some modern teenager go through the same process as described in the classic -- growing up and opening the heart of someone else while making entirely the wrong conclusion based on current "gothic" ideas (a serial killer or maybe a vampire a la "Twilight").
• Rachel Hurd Wood as the narrator in Rebecca. She's grown up into a very lovely young woman (making it easy to understand why Max de Winter would fall for her) but has been more-or-less typecast as an ingenue, often a murder victim. But for those of who who haven't read the book, there turns out to be steel in this lady, despite her waif-like status. Methinks that might make a nice transition for her.
• Viggo Mortensen as Khan Noonien Singh in a new Star Trek sequel, one based on the current timeline created by J.J.Abrams. Mind you, I'm thinking it would be fascinating to see the story of "Space Seed" take an entirely new direction (who wants to see a total retread?).
• Nicole Kidman as the villain in a James Bond Movie. The reboot of the 007 franchise gives a wonderful opportunity for the films to explore ideas the originals rarely did. In this case, a genuine Lead Bad Guy who is actually a Bad Girl -- the equivalent of Blofeld or Dr. No. Given the way Quantum seems to be working out, perhaps her name should be Miss Black? Or Mrs. Gray?

Brides of the Impaler (Review)

Ahoy! Ahead there be SPOILERS....

Edward Lee's novel Brides of the Impaler is an example of very effective cover design. The fact is, a friend of mine was reading it at work and I asked to read it when she was done. Mission accomplished! Title and cover combined to attract a fan of vampire novels.

Fortunately, this is indeed a vampire novel. With that title and this cover one would feel disappointed upon reading an inspirational tale of Peace Corps workers in El Salvador.

And vampire novel it is! More, as implied, it deals with none other than the most famous undead of all time (so far), namely Vlad The Impaler aka Vlad Tepes aka Dracula! (say it with me, rolling the 'r' we go along -- DRRRRRAAAACUUUUULAAAAA! Wasn't that fun?)

Not all vampire novels are the same of course. For one thing, not all fall really under the same genre, not really. Some aim for eroticism, and others for humor while still others are essentially gothic versions of Harry Potter or Romeo and Juliet. This one aims at horror, at a sense of malignant evil which has a real chance of triumph, of ruthlessly destroying/corrupting the innocent and good. It doesn't try to define evil very much, going after the relatively straightforward stuff of cruelty and wanton destruction. Nor is this a novel that particularly focuses on character -- the hardest thing in the book is to keep the two lawyers apart in the mind. Ditto the two cops. The insane homeless women? Good luck. They wear different clothes and one of 'em has the least teeth, but that is about it.

Which is not meant as a severe criticism. This novel isn't really so much about the nuances of what makes people tick, but about the stuff that happens to them. Along the way, the author actually accomplishes some interesting effects.

For example, the title and cover hints in some subtle way about lesbian vampires. Maybe it is the reminder of a Dracula's harem in the book and movies, with the indelible image of all three practically gang-raping Jonathan Harker. Such elements do exist in Brides of the Impaler. A successful artist (of grotesque little dolls) finds herself haunted by dreams and then hallucinations about an almost-nude vampire nun offering sensual pleasures. Eventually these dreams start to intrude upon reality, including a moment when she "wakes" to find herself mid-coitus with her foster sister! Yet this is ultimately not erotic at all. It isn't intended to be, save in the most fleeting of ways. In fact, by then we realize that both young women had had vicious foster parents who used them in child pornography, forcing them to do things to each other. That drains pretty much all the titillation out of that scene, as is intended. The erotic becomes ugly, threatening, even sadistic. Likewise, fantasies about lesbian vampires licking you all over really get spoiled when said vampires are filthy, covered in scabs, missing teeth, their nails uncut and grimy, etc. Instead of sexy, this is pretty nauseating. Again, as evidently intended.

Mind you, I will say the horror of books like this would be even more powerful if we really felt these characters were in any sense real. Hardly a one comes "alive" on these pages, and the few who almost approach it are minor characters at best -- a security guard, an archeology student, a certain priest horrified by what he sees as a dark prophecy coming to fruition.

I'll also nitpick about the history intrinsic to the story. While far from an expert on medieval Wallachia, the stories about Vlad the Impaler bear very little resemblance to all that I've read. On the other hand, how much of a valid criticism is that really, when you get down to it? This is a novel, not a history tome. Its avowed purpose to make you feel creepy, not to leave the reader with a greater understanding of Eastern Europe during the 15th century.

Some cool ideas, some chills and thrills, some moments when your skin crawls. That is the promise of this novel and that is the promise it keeps.

Dracula The Undead (Review)

Ahead there be spoilers...

Heralded as the "official" sequel to Dracula by Bram Stoker, the novel Dracula the Undead is supposed to be a labor of love by the author's great-great nephew Dacre Stoker and screenwriter Ion Holt. Methinks that part is more-or-less true. Clearly an enormous amount of effort went into this book, including meticulous research. Also, the authors are clearly fans of the genre and include many tiny tribute to Dracula films and productions past and present. Characters named Lee and Langella are the least of it. Lucy Westenra is described throughout as having red hair--a detail solely found in the Francis Ford Coppola film. Many (ultimately unused) names from Stoker's original notes make an appearance, as do historical figures and events ranging from Jack the Ripper to R.M.S. Titanic.

All well and good, but such details in this case are akin to the garnish in a fine meal. What really counts is the quality of the entree, not the cleverness of the table setting.

So how does that stack up?

First of all, from the very start the novel gives mixed signals--at least in terms of the knowledgeable Dracula reader. Beginning as it does with a letter, one naturally expects another epistolary book like the original. That is soon shown to not the case. More, the letter flatly contradicts the lore established by Stoker by promoting as "fact" stuff invented by show business and totally without basis in vampire legend. Let us be fair--Stoker did the same. Bats were not at all associated with the undead prior to his novel. But it jars when the "official sequel" starts by contradicting the first book on almost the first page--claiming vampires burst into flame when touched by sunlight. I wanted an explanation for this. Again, to be fair, one eventually was given--Stoker was told about events and altered details to suit himself. This almost feels right. But if so, one would expect Stoker (a far from unintelligent man) to have changed peoples' names and not otherwise been rather slavishly faithful to all kinds of tiny details. Hence this attempt at explanation (for no better reason, according to an afterword, than adhering to public sentiment) actually leads to a much greater contradiction.

Which in turn is mostly what is wrong with the book as a whole.

Is it a fun read? Yes. Purporting to be the tale of Quincey Harker (son of Jonathan and Mina) twenty-five years after the events of the original, it tells of the young man finally learning the truth about his family's darkest secrets. Along the way we learn what happened to Dr. Seward (a morphine addict, bereft of wife and child and career), Lord Holmwood (a remarkably stuffy recluse with a death wish), Jonathan Harker (no longer successful and seeking refuge from his jealousy in a bottle), Mina Harker (unaging still, in an unhappy marriage), Professor Van Helsing (still hunting vampires, convinced Dracula is somehow still alive). Some of these ideas are intriguing enough. Along the way, we discover a vicious lesbian vampire is on the loose and eager to wage a war against God--none other than Countess Ezebet Bathori.

Again, this is where history gets muddled. The authors go to great lengths to make sure timetables are correct, but repeat a lot of now-discredited rumors about the so-called "Blood Countess." Likewise, they explicitly link Dracula of the novel with Vlad the Impaler, another notion they know doesn't fit the facts (they say as much in the afterword).

So the book is neither one thing nor the other, at least in terms of accuracy (if using that term regarding fiction makes sense).

Another issue I had--answering questions. Even a little bit of serious thought will reveal the novel Dracula is filled with unanswered questions. Some regard relatively mundane matters--how did Lucy and Mina meet, how did Lucy's three suitors come to be such good friends, etc. Others are more genuinely mysterious--what was the connection between Dracula and Renfield, what happened aboard the Demeter, did Lucy die of blood loss or from a botched blood transfusion (actually, I suspect Lucy had AB negative blood--which explains how she rallied after transfusions from four different donors, and gives some real hint of how much of a geek I really am), etc.

This book tries to answer all of them. And more. For that very reason it feels less like an engrossing story and more like the literary equivalent of a paint-by-the-numbers landscape.

Much more damning--many of the key characters remain unreal. Quincey Harker, the semi-hero of the novel, comes across as a stereotypical spoiled brat. He is supposed to feel great passion which motivates much of his actions. Not once did I feel myself in his shoes. Likewise Dracula himself (yes, like in all those movies, he came back) never once feels "alive" no matter how much explanation is given for his actions. Of the original band of hunters, Van Helsing in particular seems without reality (although to be fair at least Seward, Holmwood and the Harkers fare much better). And the villain--Countess Bathori--is such a stereotypical lesbian man-hater one feels that if she'd been black she'd eat fried chicken and watermelon, then chase white women while tap-dancing. I am not so doctrinaire vis-a-vis gay rights that I object to a lesbian villain. What offends me is how she not only embodies every fundamentalist's sapphic nightmare but also how she never once comes alive as a person. She's a formula, not a woman--a character description rather than a character.

More, the novel takes itself too seriously yet at the same time not seriously enough. Were it nothing but a roller-coaster of thrills and chills, then judging it as a poor exploration of its own ideas would be silly. But since it does attempt to portray drama, does seem to want to address issues of guilt and redemption, of identity and personal commitment, then it needs to live up to its potential a bit more than this one comes near doing.

All of the above may seem harsh. Honestly, the novel has some very fun and interesting ideas such as Mina's agelessness, a long-overdue police investigation into the events surrounding Lucy Westenra's death, Lord Holmwood's emotional life over time as he contemplated his actions, etc. Methinks it has the potential to turn into a fun motion picture (rather more akin to Van Helsing that Bram Stoker's Dracula). But frankly there are much better Dracula "sequels" out there. And much better books in general. I cannot recommend people spend money on the thing.