In Victorian England, history has taken a peculiar turn: Queen Victoria has married Vlad Tepes, who has turned the Queen, restored her youth, and given her eternal life. With the Queen of England and her Prince Consort counted among the undead, it's not long before it becomes a fashionable choice, and even a political necessity, to embrace the Dark Kiss that brings immortality. High-born and low-born alike have renounced their "warm" lives in favor of the "red thirst." To accommodate the societal change, most business is conducted at night, silver is in restricted supply (hide grandma's tea service!), and humans increasingly find themselves in the minority. In the midst of this societal upheaval, a new threat has emerged as poor, eviscerated vampire prostitutes have been found in Whitechapel, "ripped" by a murderer with his own violent agenda. Welcome to A.D.--the year of our Dracula.Anno Dracula is an inventive premise that eventually collapses under its own weight. Newman's novel builds upon a reimagining of events that occur in the wake of Bram Stoker's Dracula had it been history instead of fiction. In Newman's Victorian England, the hunt is on for the murderer known as "Silver Knife" until he is given a new moniker upon receipt of anonymous letters signed "Jack the Ripper." Turning the killing spree of Jack the Ripper into a hate crime against vampires is brilliant, but instead of being the axis of the book's action it serves only as a loose framework. We as readers know the identity of the killer within the first 20 pages, but this revelation never creates any real sense of dramatic irony. If anything, it lessens the suspense that could have been created by a tense manhunt through the streets of London. The characters purportedly brought in to track the murderer do little other than show up at the scene of the crime and discuss everything but Jack the Ripper. No one character seems truly invested in tracking the madman. In fact, it's possible to forget the Jack the Ripper angle for entire chapters as characters fall in love, fall out of love, and engage in all of the social duties expected of the upper class.The two primary characters (and it's hard to narrow it down to just two because you need to fill out a dance card to keep up with who you're supposed to focus on in this large cast--a problem further complicated by a constantly shifting point of view between chapters) are Genevieve Dieudonne and Charles Beauregard. Genevieve is a vampire elder, older than Dracula by half a century. Mirroring European snobbery based upon pedigree, she is of the pure bloodline of Chandagnac and looks down upon those from the "polluted" bloodline of Dracula. An undead philanthropist, she works in a free clinic for newly turned vampires, shows up everywhere looking beautiful and refined, and, for reasons that are murky at best, is asked to begin looking into the Jack the Ripper case because of her unique insight (of which she basically has nil). Charles Beauregard is a member of the Diogenes Club, a secret organization of powerful men who pull the strings in London society. Charles rejects the idea of becoming a vampire, shows up everywhere looking handsome and refined, and, for reasons that are murky at best, is asked to begin looking into the Jack the Ripper case because of his unique skill set (of which he basically has a silver sword concealed in a cane). Given that these two have nothing to do at the crime scenes other than shake their heads sympathetically over the gruesome loss of life, it's inevitable that they will fall in love. In terms of characterization, we're wading in some shallow waters. Neither character seems anything more than a fictional construct simply acting and reacting in ways that move the plot forward in a serviceable, if not seamless, manner.In regard to the large cast of characters, Newman has considerable fun weaving historical and fictional characters into the plot. Bram and Florence Stoker, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Beatrix Potter, Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes, Mina Harker, and several Victorian societal and political luminaries either make appearances or are alluded to throughout. Even Lestat de Lioncourt makes a brief appearance as a foppish rebel against the Christians who denounce the rise of the undead. Now, initially this might sound like fun, but these characters make appearances so brief that they don't really add anything to the narrative. It's name-dropping in lieu of a clever conceit; basically, it's the literary equivalent of spotting Angelina Jolie in a crowded airport, snapping a photo as she whisks through the terminal, and then boring everyone for the rest of your life with a photo of the back of her head. And, in grandiose terms, you shall forever refer to this event as "the day I met Angelina Jolie."The book is not entirely without its merits and I can certainly see where hardcore Dracula fans or Victorian Era Anglophiles would enjoy the hell out of this. As for me, it was a marvelously ingenious idea that ultimately felt as cold and stiff as a vampire sleeping it off in his crypt. The absence of Dracula until the last 20 pages also added to the disappointment and, while the scene in which Genevieve and Charles finally visit the vampire court is horrifically twisted, I was disappointed in the anticlimactic ending that was over with too quickly and easily.And now, for those who won't read the novel, a quick rant about the end! (view spoiler)[Okay, so, do you want to know how they defeat Dracula? When they enter into Victoria's court, they find the bloated and naked Dracula sitting upon the throne, amid the animal like filth created by his progeny as they feed and fornicate and kill with gleeful abandon. Chained to Dracula's wrist and held captive by a diamond studded collar, Victoria is kept like a dog beside the throne. Now I admit, this stuff is AWESOME. It is the antithesis of every Victorian ideal, all of which have fallen before the base and primal desires of Dracula. Charles slips in the silver knife used by Jack the Ripper and tosses it to his Queen, who immediately uses it to end her own life.So here's where I get pissed: that's the whole plan to rid England of Dracula--kill the Queen. Then Dracula will have to bow before tradition and relinquish the throne to the next in line. Dracula has been thwarted by the British line of succession to the throne! Crafty buggers, eh? Because when you're the most powerful vampire on the planet, you've turned most of England into your undead minions, and you're possessed of a ruthless and barbaric intelligence, you will always--always--bow down before societal customs. So Dracula basically just flies away into the night rather than face the still human heir to the throne and rip his guts out. I was willing to give this book a 3 until this nonsense. (hide spoiler)]
In 1885, Count Dracula came to London to spread vampirism into the heart of Victorian England. But in this retelling of (literary) history, Van Helsing did not defeat Dracula; rather, Dracula succeeded, marrying Queen Victoria and becoming Prince Consort. Now, in 1888, vampires fill positions of powerbut also the streets of Whitechapel, where a murderer is killing and mutilating young vampire prostitutes. The attempt to catch him brings together a upper class adventurer named Charles Beauregard and an ancient vampire elder named Genevieve Diuedonne. A clever concept that intertwines alternate history with horror and includes many familiar faces (including, of course, Jack the Ripper, known here as the Silver Knife), this is a promising political intrigue enrichened by vampires that, unfortunately, falls flat. Although the horror is indeed gruesome, the plot is detailed, and the vampires are skillfully conceived, the book's premise is impossible to believe and the writing style is cheap at best (and desperately in need of an editor at worst). This is a swift read and holds a lot of promise, but it is also, frankly, quite bad. I don't recommend it.This premise as well as the character cameos create a promising and interesting starting place for the book. The Victorian setting, touching both on high society and the slums of Whitechapel, the characters which range from vampire elders to Jack the Ripper to minute appearances from even Oscar Wilde, and finally the vampires, conceived in thoughtful detail and as well as gruesome horror, certainly seems promising. And to his credit, Newman conceives and explores his plot well: it's a detailed combination of horror and history and politics, knitted together neatly but not too simply, and so remains interesting, readable, and both logical and unpredictable.But the premise does not live up to its potential by a long shot. Instead, the book is bogged down by an underlying fault in the premise as well as poor storytelling. The premise's flaw is that Queen Victoria married Count Dracula prior to the start of the book, and that by the time of the book his plan to take control over England has proceeded largely without difficulty. Vampires roam the streets, and more are being reborn into vampirism every dayincluding those in the upper class. All of this, despite the fact that Dracula remains excessive, appalling, and violent as ever. Why is there no social resistance to vampirism? The book makes a big deal of it, but there is clearly no major social backlashor the vampires would not have gotten so far. Jack the Ripper killing vampires makes more sense than anything else in the book, including the social struggles between the vampires and the "warm" and new politics including vampire rulers, in particular a vampire as Prince Consort. Despite the careful scripting and weaving of disparate threads and concepts, the result is a premise and plot that are, for lack of a better word, impossible, thus tainting the rest of the book with the reader's disbelief.Worse than the premise is, unfortunately, the writing. The book depends on short chapters to keep the plot moving and repeated ellipses to create a sense of urgency (especially in the later chapters), and with constant errors in punctuation and capitalization it is in dire need of an editor. By contrast, there is nothing about the writing that stands out as artful, skillful, or even simply good. To an extent, the short chapters and simple writing keep the book moving smoothly and help to simplify what could be an overly complex plot, but on the whole the bad writing style is just that: bad. So, despite the promise of the premise, the unfeasible plot and the poor writing make this a disappointing, lackluster novel. I appreciate the attempt, but I didn't enjoy the product, and I don't recommend this book.
What do You think about Anno Dracula (1998)?
This is a somewhat strange book, but it presents an interesting "What if". The premise is that Dracula won and took over England. Instead of using just historical characters, Newman brings in famous Victorian fictional characters as well (most notably in reference to Sherlock Holmes). This is risky because it makes two sets of fictional characters (Newman's own and those character he borrows) as well as real historical figures. It works because Newman has done his research, not only in terms of the literature (you can tell he has read and thought about Dracula, but in terms of history. Be warned, there is violence, so if you are looking for a "polite" novel, this isn't it.
—Chris
I hadn't read any fiction by Kim Newman before, though I've always enjoyed his film reviews for Empire magazine. I'm pretty sure I haven't read Dracula either, though I've seen plenty of film versions of it.The twin premise here is that Dracula was not defeated at the end of Bram Stoker's novel, and that he existed in the same world as many other fictional characters.It's hard to mention that second bit without thinking of Alan Moore's later League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There are other similarities, too, in that both authors have penned sequels taking their stories into the twentieth century. Earlier books in a similar vein include Philip Jose Farmer's Wold-Newton books (credited here by Kim Newman), and of course just about every comic published since the 1940s.Part of me wishes that Newman had limited himself to the characters from Dracula - occasionally the book drives you off to Wikipedia to look characters up, rather than drawing you in to its plot - but you can't begrudge an author his enthusiasms, and in general he carries it off very well. Indeed, one of the book's most interesting ideas is that the differences between vampires in different books stems from there being different families of vampires, with different abilities, mentalities and relationships. Dracula's line, for example, is said to be tainted, damaged and more demented than most, because of how he died before turning.For most of the novel Dracula himself is an offstage, pernicious presence. When he does take centre stage, the wait was worthwhile - Newman's Dracula is utterly terrifying.Overall, this is a much more plot-driven book than you might expect, and, though the mood of fear, oppression and decay is kept at a high pitch, every word compels the reader to keep turning the pages. The literary games are always subservient to the storytelling. Similarly, Dracula's far-from-bloodless coup has serious consequences for Britain's society, from its class system to its political organisations and its foreign policy, but we only learn about those things as they are relevant to the story.A brilliant book.
—Stephen Theaker
4.5 stars. This was a very well thought out and very original novel (which is saying a lot for a book about Dracula and vampires). Super plot and great characters, together with the interweaving of both historic and literary figures make this a very worth while read. As good as the rest of the novel is, the final 30 pages and the description of Dracula and his "court" is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING (and brilliantly conceived) and brings this novel to the level of a MUST READ!!!Nominee: World Fantasy Award for Best Novel (1993)Nominee: Bram Stoker Award for Best Novel (1994)Nominee: Locus Award for Best Horror/Dark Fantasy Novel (1994)
—Stephen
