This is an interesting book, but I dislike all the jumping around. I think it would be excellent as two separate stories, one following Janos and one following Betsy. Actually, the story with Betsy could just go away and I'd be happy. Also, at times it feels like there are dumps of information made about the history of the time period, which are kind of boring. Wish they had been integrated differently so they wouldn't feel like like blocks of info from a history textbook. Of course, how much of what is written is real and how much is fiction? Also, so much of the entire story is speculative anyway, so why put soooo much? I do like how the Countess is being tied to Vlad the Impaler, or "Dracula" in a sense and I'm wondering if all that is historically accurate or made up. It would be a much faster read for me if I could skip the 2010 scenes, but I guess I'll muddle through. I rarely cannot finish a book, but I couldn't get through this one. First, things I liked: many aspects of the historical setting are cool, I guess? There are details about horses that are, um, probably correct? Look, the main thing was that the principle characters are bland, the dialogue is stilted and cliche. One of the main characters, Daisy, self-identifies as a "goth" and her interaction with her mother comes across like a sixteen-year-old from an after school special. The writing is so careful to paint Daisy as an edgy and misunderstood teenage rebel that it feels...like the book is talking down to you as a reader. Basically, it's just too heavy handed for my tastes. Conflict building is over the top to the point of absurdity. One of the main characters, Betsy, has a conversation with her mother about the merits of her dead father for an entire chapter. There's a lot of back and forth, a lot of verbal sniping...but the chapter doesn't "do" anything else. It's just meant to convey that Betsy and her mom don't get along, and it does so relentlessly. I'm not saying that scenario is unrealistic or that the sort of relationship displayed isn't a serious and interesting one. It just failed to make me care, because all the wires are showing in the prose. Who knows, maybe the books gets better later on. Some reviewers here liked it. But if you're looking for the kind of intricate, historical / psychological thriller this book seems to be marketed as, look elsewhere--I don't trust the psychological complexity of any of these characters.
What do You think about The House OF Bathory (2000)?
This book like all of Linda's novels was amazing!! It was beautifully written and throughly researched to perfection. The contrast between modern and past day to the fact where the audience assumed something cheesy was going about their being vampires involved but turning out that the count really was a psychopath and the " vampires" we're just drug addicts, I was jumping up in down in excitement! Though the only criticism I have is on the characters, I think doctor path was a little to whiny and childish in her behaviour despite her advanced age (Betsy) and I would have liked a little more info on Morgan and daisy's afterlife and past to conclude.
—melody
The historical base for the story is eery and morbid, yet extremely captivating! Unlike in The Bloodletter’s Daughter, the author decided to switch back and forth between a modern story and the story of Countess Bathory in the 1600’s in this novel (rather than making it strictly a historical fiction). Her concept of how to intertwine both story lines had some potential, but I would have preferred to stay in the 1600’s. It became a bit complicated and the overlap felt a bit forced at some points. However, I still found it to be a mostly enjoyable read!
—Ximena
Das Buch fing so gut an, hielt die Spannung bis kurz vorm Schluss - und endete dann im Desaster.
—CoachKB
I wanted more. I wanted more Bathory, less modern stuff.
—aljane
