Fact or Fiction, or a bit of both...? You decide. Me, I just love a good story wherever it comes from. This is the prequel to the fantastic Bram Stoker's Dracula and follows the author himself beginning with his sickly childhood with his family in Ireland and the strange goings on that surrounded the family's Nanny Ellen Crone who vanished soon after Bram's health miraculously started to improve. It then details certain events which followed as the siblings grew up, with some strange sightings of Ellen along the way. We also hear from the present day as Bram is trying to hold off some evil in a desolate tower. Exactly how all this pieces together is a delight to uncover at the right time so it's pretty hard to say much more about the goings on without ruining it, so I won't!
Oh my days, this book oozed atmosphere and really reminded me of all things good with proper horror stories. It was alternately visceral and implied, much like the old black and white horror films I devoured as a young adult. Definitely a return to all things good about vampires that, in my opinion, has been somewhat diluted by a lot of fiction these days.
One of the things I really loved about this book was the way that the information was portrayed in the form of journal entries and letters (akin to the original I must add). I find that this method of storytelling gives a book a chance to progress quite quickly as a lot of information can be imparted in a short space of time. It also makes perspective easier to follow when a story is "told" by multiple characters. It also helps with the non-linear timeline, another thing that when done as well as here is also a very effective method of story telling. Here, we start in the middle, flick back in time, juggle these two timelines until they merge and then proceed forward. All very easy to follow.
It's quite a weights tome, page count wise, but I really didn't notice the length once I got into it and became fully immersed in the world it was portraying, and I pretty much whizzed through it in only a couple of sittings, only pausing occasionally to catch my breath and when real life dictated. There's a bit of a bonus at the end too in the form of authors' notes. They explain the origin of this book with regard to the original work of Dracula and the missing first hundred-odd pages; definitely interesting and includes a fair few of Stoker (the original one)'s own notes.
I could bang on so much more about how brilliant this book is. How, out of the 266 books I have read this year so far, this one has screamed its way straight into my top five. How I have since gone on and re-read Dracula and love that these two books together have reignited my passion for well written horror books. But I am going to leave you with just this thought. If you love classic, atmospheric, proper old school horror, read this book.
My thanks go to the Publisher and Netgalley for the chance to read this book.

[Review to be published on October 26]

We all know the story of Dracula, but what if there was more to the story than we thought? In 1868, 22-year-old Bram Stoker is locked in an abbey tower. Armed with only mirrors, crucifixes, holy water, a basket of roses and a gun, Stoker is in a deadly stand off with an unspeakable evil. Unsure whether he will survive the night, he sets out to record the bizarre series of events that have led him to this point, beginning with his childhood nanny; a mysterious woman named Ellen Crone.

A prequel, of sorts, not to Dracula necessarily but rather to the genesis of the story itself, Dracul is the result of an official collaboration between thriller writer J.D. Barker and author and descendent of Bram, Dacre Stoker. Using material Stoker was forced to cut from the original manuscript as a starting point, the story posits that vampires, or creatures like them, could and do exist. Stoker himself originally intended to do this, but was discouraged by his publisher, who, in the aftermath of the Jack the Ripper murders, were worried about the public reaction to a book about a supernatural killer who drank people’s blood that purported to be non-fiction, and so the first 101 pages were dropped. Also incorporated is biographical information—Stoker’s long childhood illness—and the introduction of supernatural elements in the form of Ellen Crone, who cures Bram’s illness by means that are mysterious to Bram and his family, but probably not to those who are familiar with vampire fiction and its tropes.

In the tradition of Gothic literature, the story is told through the use of various forms of documentation—Bram’s written account, his sister Matilda’s letters,and brother Thornley’s journal—as well as a third person narrative. Beginning in medias res with Bram holed up in the tower and then intercutting between it and the other written accounts as flashbacks works brilliantly in terms of pacing.

By starting off at a point in the future where events have clearly come to a head, the story has a point to work towards and the reader an incentive to stick with it, to find out how we got to where we are, allowing the flashback material to flesh the story and characters out rather than slow it down. And this does bring me to the book’s one downside: familiarity. With the multitude of vampire literature that has been published since Dracula, readers will inevitably be more familiar with what’s going on than the characters are (there’s even a  Van Helsing-like character, whose chief job is to be a source of exposition) and, to begin with at least, some may wish that they would just get on with it already.

That being said, one of the things it does really well is to use those same tropes to create atmosphere. Dracul is an old-school gothic horror/vampire story, with locations ranging from dark swamps and forests, crumbling crypts, castles, and towers to graveyards and hospital morgues, as well as the homes, drawing rooms and other expected locations from fiction set during the 19th century (as well as locations that may be familiar to those who have read the original novel). The sections in the tower are wonderfully and creepily claustrophobic. Bram is beset from all sides, with wolves prowling down below outside and a sinister presence at the door that doesn’t hesitate to use mind games to try and wear him down and get him to invite it in (so no prizes for guessing the identity of this would-be intruder).

There’s also plenty of blood and body parts; this is most definitely a vampire story with fangs as well as tragedy. There is also a lot of interesting historical context: there is discussion of the lore, folk mythology, and legends surrounding vampires and, following the story, an author’s note detailing the history of Bram’s inspiration for Dracula and how this influenced their process of researching and writing Dracul.

To conclude, although it may not do anything new, Dracul is definitely one to check out for those who like their vampire fiction old fashioned and their horror with bite. With the potential for sequels, it’s a good Halloween read!

The first thing you need to know about me (ok, not the first) is that I usually don’t do horror. The second thing you need to know about me is that, despite the first thing, I actually quite like vampires.

Not like as in I think they are a group of fantastic people who contribute to society but I find them interesting and varied in terms of their representation in fiction.

I would say that the most famous of all vampires is Dracula. However when I asked my husband who he thinks of he says, ‘Tom Cruise.’ Disclaimer: Tom Cruise, to my knowledge, is not an actual vampire but a Hollywood actor who once played Lestat.

I’m still sticking with Dracula as the vampire of all times.

My interest with this book was piqued by two things:-

It is a Dracula prequel of sorts
The name of one of the co-writers
That’s right… there is a Stoker on the cover. Dacre Stoker is the great grand-nephew of Bram Stoker himself.

This also drew me in.

Now we can either look at this optimistically or cynically. The optimist is telling me that if anyone is going to try and do the best job they can do at a Dracula prequel it will be the individual that shares blood and a name with the original author. There’s a lot riding on the reputation of that name.

The cynic is telling me that it doesn’t always matter if someone shares kinship – it doesn’t mean that a good job will be had and sometimes the name can be used in place of effort. You may have an automatic readership but that readership could be reading with a wryly raised eyebrow.

I have judged this book the best I can on its own merits but it’s pretty impossible to disentangle it from Dracula completely, but then – you’re not actually supposed to.

The premise is an interesting one. Apparently back when Bram Stoker offered Dracula to his publishers he prefaced the text with saying, ‘it’s a true story.’ The publishers didn’t exactly want to print that, so didn’t.

‘Dracul’ takes this statement and plays with it. In this story Bram Stoker is a character, beginning as a young boy and growing to be a young man and, along with his frankly awesome sister Matilda, encounters the supernatural and some rather horrifying events.

The suspension of belief is that these events actually happened and inspired Bram to write it all down in an altered version that became his most famous novel.

Does it work? Yes and no.

The writing is solid. It isn’t anything exceptional but it does lend itself to some wonderfully creepy sections at times. Events get intense but at no point turn horrifying. That’s fine with me because like I said, I don’t do horror. Dracul is still written in a Gothic style and what I do like is Gothic unease.

The treatment of the characters is an interesting one. If you’re writing about people that actually existed (and that you are distantly related to) you can’t exactly be overtly critical and go overboard with character flaws. Well, you can but it may make some people un-invite you for Christmas.

What does this mean in terms of Dracul? Well it means that most of the characters are not that developed. Bram is very much the ‘hero type’ and anything negative is due to him being a victim of circumstance (and vampiric lure) rather than any inherent character flaw. Matilda, his older sister, is interesting but does fulfill the role of ‘brave and feisty older sister.’ But you know what? I liked her and I adored their sibling relationship.

The other Stokers are footnotes, aside from when Thornley, the eldest Stoker sibling, has more of a part in the second half. Even then his character is introduced more as a way to include his wife Emily. Emily is clearly supposed to be the inspiration for Lucy Westenra.

The most interesting character is Ellen Crone, the mysterious nanny to the Stokers who has a link to an even more mysterious Count. To be blunt: Count Dracula is boring and one dimensional and a villain just because. Ellen is complex, contradictory and her motives remain constantly unclear.

When Ellen’s story has more exposition it does get a tad more boring but that’s because it begins to include more of Count Dracula. Can you believe that? That a prequel to Dracula has Dracula being a dull character? I would have gladly taken more Ellen.

And this is where the story unravels for me. The beginning is just… superb. As I read I kept thinking, ‘this is a four star book’ because the sections with Bram, Matilda and Ellen when the siblings are children are just wonderful and eerie and it feels like all bets are off.

Unfortunately this brilliant start is not continued throughout the book. During the second half there are still moments of ‘wow’ but the inconsistency has well and truly kicked in.

Among sections which still contain 4 star brilliance we are also treated to some 2 star passages where the chilling, uncertain motivations of characters become replaced with moustache twirling villainy and where the unsettling atmosphere of Gothic horror become action packed showdowns.

The best bits of Dracul is when there is more ‘freedom’ surrounding the original or little-known characters (i.e. Ellen Crone) as this is where the story is at its strongest.

As stated, the premise is that the events of Dracul are true and that Bram Stoker wrote it all down and used key events/ people as inspiration. This means that what occurs in Dracula must also, in some part, occur in Dracul. If not in an overt manner than at least in a passing nod.

The passing nods and the originality work best. Oddly, the sections where it doesn’t work is where the story borrows so heavily from the source material that you feel that you’re reading Dracula V2 but a less well written and less complex version.

It’s strange to say that but Dracul works at his best when there is no link to Dracula whatsoever. Unfortunately what we get is sections where the writers try to emulate Dracula so hard that they borrow too much and water it down to boring.

If this was an original vampire Gothic story based on Ellen and a family that she has ‘joined’ then this could possibly have been a more interesting book. But then maybe I’m done with your typically evil male vampires and I am here for complicated, maybe evil/ maybe not female ones.

Dracul was a 4 in some places and a 2 in others but overall the inconsistency with quality meant that I went middle ground and gave this a 3. I did enjoy this but didn’t love it.

Aside from Matilda and Ellen. I actually loved them very much.

Ok, I clearly totally want a female vampire and a female human and a complex bond between them.

I really wanted to love this book, even though it is not my usual genre - but a tale of gothic horror based on the story of Dracula sounded like the perfect spooky October read. Unfortunately, this book was just a bit too strange and rambling for me. Whilst I found the story intriguing, I found it disjointed with its dual timeline and the POVs of multiple characters, who all remained somewhat underdeveloped and distant in my mind. The story kept flipping back and forth from gripping to dragging and in turn fascinated and utterly bored me. By the half-way mark I realised I was not enjoying the journey. I am sure that this novel will appeal to lovers of vampire fiction or fans of the late Bram Stoker (even though I found his character to be distant and not really capturing my interest as much as his sister Matilda in this story). I concede that this was just not the right book for me at this time.

Dracul was a fascinating and captivating read. I loved every minute of this prequel story that imagined the origins of Bram Stoker's tale and his personal interactions with vampires, including the infamous Dracula. The book was atmospheric, and I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the 'now' prose with letters and journal extracts detailing past events. It was a device that worked well and allowed us to garner information from various viewpoints. While more Gothic than outright horror, there were still plenty of edge-of-the-seat moments, and overall the book was nicely paced, with plenty of action and adventure. The author's note at the end was also interesting. I would certainly recommend Dracul to vampire/Dracula fans and lovers of Gothic tales.

All fiction – and supernatural fiction especially so – requires us to suspend our disbelief and to accept that the world between the covers of a book is as real as the one we’re living in (if not more). The premise of Dracul however is even harder to swallow than the very existence of the Undead – the novel presents us with a Bram Stoker who has personal experience of vampires and who has a final showdown with none other than Count Dracula himself. The concept intrigued me even whilst setting alarm bells ringing in my head – would Dracul turn out to be the great Dracula prequel touted by the marketing blurbs or just another in a recent tradition of horror mash-ups? The fact that the novel is jointly credited to Dacre Stoker (Bram’s great-grand nephew) and horror writer J.D. Barker only fuelled my misgivings. Apart from my irrational prejudice against co-authored works, the Stoker name on the title page gave me a niggling suspicion that it was there primarily to capitalize on the link to Bram. And so, with some difficulty in setting aside pre-conceptions, uncertainties and pet peeves, I joined a youngish Bram keeping watch in an unnamed tower, eyes fixed on a heavy door behind which untold horrors lurk...

I must say that the initial chapters did little to shake off my doubts . The shifts between Bram’s vigil (helpfully marked “NOW”) and his recollections of his sickly childhood, nursed by the enigmatic “Nanna Ellen”, seemed artificial, the dialogue between Bram and his sister Matilda unconvincing. However, once this backstory was set out and the action shifted closer to the (novel’s) present, I became increasingly engrossed. Like Bram’s original, Dracul follows a group of improvised vampire-busters on a hunt which leads them to the dark heart of Continental Europe. The pace of the plot mounts inexorably and culminates in a set-piece in a ghost-village outside Munich which seems to be as much inspired by horror movies and zombie tropes as by ‘traditional’ vampire fiction.

Part of the fun of the book lies in looking for the parallels between this novel and the original, as well as references to real life events and figures. Thus, as in Dracula, Dracul is recounted through a series of journal entries, diaries and letters, giving the text an immediacy and allowing for different perspectives. There is material which is clearly gleaned from the short story Dracula’s Guest and expanded to fit the plot. The novel also has its own Van Helsing, in the shape of Arminius Vámbéry, a Hungarian Turkologist who, in reality, was an acquaintance of Stoker and might have influenced or served as a model for Van Helsing. Rather than a prequel to Dracula, I’d consider it more of a companion piece – a “pastiche”, in a positive sense, which delights in resurrecting vampire tropes largely shaped by Bram Stoker’s seminal novel.

In an afterword to Dracul, Dacre Stoker explains that this novel is based on his ancestor’s actual notes and on the first hundred-or-so pages of the novel which were allegedly excised at the insistence of the original publishers. Then, Stoker ups the ante – Bram, he tells us, presented the manuscript as a “true story” and Dracula was not meant to serve as ‘entertainment’ as much as a warning against a very real evil. Now, of course, Dracula was neither the first nor the last Gothic novel to present itself as a “non-fictional” account. Presumably, Dacre is riffing on this trope. But this does raise an interesting question – namely just how far is Dracul actually inspired by Bram’s biography, handwritten notes and “original intentions” and how much of it is Dacre’s and J.D. Barker’s own invention? Scholars of the Gothic might illuminate us – in the meantime, Dracul remains an enjoyable vampire romp which nicely complements the (unbeatable) original.

This took me a while to get into - and it's longer than I thought. But overall a suitably gothic read (even if a little clichéd at times), and enjoyable. Would recommend!

Thankyou to NetGalley, Random House UK, Transworld Publishers, Bantam Press and the authors Dacre Stoker and J.D Barker for the opportunity to read an advanced readers copy of Dracul.
I was drawn to this book for multiple reasons. One of the first "grown up" novels I read as a child was Dracula. I think I was about 10 at the time (with a torch under the covers ). I loved it. So to read a book about the creation of Dracula and the author Bram Stoker co-written by a descendent of his, I was hooked. If that wasn't reason enough, the second co-author, J D Barker, has written amazing novels in his own right which I devoured as soon as I got my hands on them. Yes, they are THAT good.
Dracul offered so much that piqued my interest. I was so excited when I received my copy of the novel in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
So, the question is, was it as good as I thought it would be? No, it wasn't.
It was so much better than I could have ever imagined.. I was in literary heaven.
Dracul was an exquisitely written and engrossing story that captures your imagination, sending those delicious chills up the spine. This is a book that will see you sitting up until you have turned the last page. And, like the original Dracula, will stay with you for a long time. I have already prepurchased the book edition.
There really are no words to describe how wonderful it was to read this book. I could never hope to explain what it is about this book that makes it such an exquisite read.
If you are a fan of gothic tales / the original Dracula, you are going to love Dracul. The how it all began.
Definitely a book that is well worth a read. If I could give it more stars, I would.
Thankyou to both Dacre Stoker and J D Barker for writing such a captivating story.