What do You think about Covenant With The Vampire (1995)?
A very interesting take on the dracula myth. Arkady Psepesh returns to Transylvania upon the death of his father and immediately here's the many rumors from the far away village. devil...covenant...vampire. He brings his pregnant wife, Mary to meet his family - his sister, Zsuzsanna and his uncle, Vlad. This is a roller coaster ride of rumor, suspicion and terrified villagers. Such unbelievable things are happening to Arkady that he fears for his sanity. Mary is getting a different but just as horrifying education from the servants and Zsuzsanna. This is an extremely well-written horror story that leads you on an electrifying adventure encased in blood and death.Note: Surprisingly enough Dracul means dragon and dracula means son of the dragon. How did vampire come from this?
—Barbara ★
"Covenant with the Vampire" is a prequel to Bram Stoker's "Dracula". I am usually wary of this kind of books, because I am very protective and possibly a little close-minded when it comes to the classics I loved. This book was not at all bad as I feared, but not terribly exciting either.The novel echoes the original "Dracula" in many ways. Some of them are a nice touch, and thanks to them the story fits quite well with Stoker's classic. First of all the atmosphere, which is dark and creepy, and the narration through different journals, which is more involving and helps seeing the story from every angle. Dracula is also quite faithful to Stoker's character, and thankfully Kalogridis does not try to present him in an unconvincing good light. The whole story about his covenant with his descendants is really well done and makes sense. It is an original idea, and also a well executed one. However, there are also some similarities which, in my opinion, eventually made the book weak, predictable and not remarkable. While the plot is not completely identical, there are way too many similarities to the original "Dracula". The characters, especially, don't present many surprises: Arkady and Mary are very similar to Jonathan and Mina Harker, and Zsuzsanna's storyline echoes that of Lucy Westenra. It was easy to predict what would happen next, and there were no real twists, nor frights. Overall, this is a story quite faithful to the classic, with an interesting concept behind it, but still nothing special. I don't regret reading it, but I have no interest in reading the rest of the series.
—Elena
This book started off well, but I found myself liking it less as it went on. Everything seemed like a rehash of Stoker's novel and the events progressed in pretty similar ways. The history of the Tepes line incorporated into an early conversation was very interesting, although anyone who has read 'The Historian' will be treading familiar ground. One thing the author did very well was build atmosphere. The only thing I remember wishing was different about Stoker's novel was the time spent by Harker in Transylvania. I would've liked to read more about his time in Dracula's realm and that is something this novel provides, although we have a different protagonist. If you read it on a 'dark and stormy night' (like I read Stoker's novel for the first time)there might be actual frights in there somewhere. Reading by the bedside lamp though, what you get is a story that is slow to start off, has too many familiar elements and no actual frights. Kostova's Dracula was creepier. I found the sensuality to be a little forced too. The scene in the original Dracula where Harker meets the Count's wives is sensual yet creepy. Similar scenes in this book are just plain sensual and feel tacked on. Thankfully, J.K didn't go the stupid Twilight way with vampires, which I find that extremely silly and annoying. This Dracula is still menacing, although Kostova did a better job at potraying a prince who lived through centuries of change. Stoker's novel remains the best one on Dracula, if only for having better pacing.
—A.a.m
