After reading everything I could this "official" sequel, from Wikipedia to reviews on Amazon.com, I knew what I was getting into before opening the cover. The challenge then, was to see how the content of this sequel offended my expectations, and considering that my original review in Microsoft word is nearly six times the size of the 400 word limitation, that's saying a lot. And with this limit in mind, I'll try to list what exactly I didn't like without going into rage mode, but I can't make any guarantees.
First, why retcon the entire original novel, from the vampires to the plot points? It shows nothing but disrespect to Bram Stoker's novel, and knowing the reasons Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt had for writing this, it's even more insulting. I'd like to go into detail, but I'm trying to stay brief here.
Second, the story is rather predictable (with easily seen twists that I could've predicted even without an online synopsis), and it doesn't help that the characters, both old and new, are unlikeable at best, with Quincey in particular being so Genre Blind that I wanted to smack him (Repeatedly). The narrative also drags down the experience in that it constantly shifts between different subplots that take up the majority of the book and different characters, and this is especially aggravating near the end of the book when you discover one plot twist only to shift to another one.
Third, since the original book was in the horror genre, it's to be expected that there are some scares to be had. However, as I read this book, I couldn't help but wonder if the writer's knew what horror was, since the main ways the book employs to scare the reader involve a lot of blood and gore. Blood and gore might scare some people, but it ultimately becomes a bore, and when that isn't scary to a reader, it sends them away in disgust instead. What ever happened to the original's more subtle methods of instilling fear? The stuff you don't see is scarier than the stuff you do see.
And there's the abridged version of my review. The lack of faith to the source material, boring plot and confusing blood and gore for horror dragged it down. If there's one thing I can say from my original review, it's this: if Bram Stoker was around when this book was being written, there is no way he would've let this pass.
Sequels do not work this way!
After reading everything I could this "official" sequel, from Wikipedia to reviews on Amazon.com, I knew what I was getting into before opening the cover. The challenge then, was to see how the content of this sequel offended my expectations, and considering that my original review in Microsoft word is nearly six times the size of the 400 word limitation, that's saying a lot. And with this limit in mind, I'll try to list what exactly I didn't like without going into rage mode, but I can't make any guarantees.
First, why retcon the entire original novel, from the vampires to the plot points? It shows nothing but disrespect to Bram Stoker's novel, and knowing the reasons Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt had for writing this, it's even more insulting. I'd like to go into detail, but I'm trying to stay brief here.
Second, the story is rather predictable (with easily seen twists that I could've predicted even without an online synopsis), and it doesn't help that the characters, both old and new, are unlikeable at best, with Quincey in particular being so Genre Blind that I wanted to smack him (Repeatedly). The narrative also drags down the experience in that it constantly shifts between different subplots that take up the majority of the book and different characters, and this is especially aggravating near the end of the book when you discover one plot twist only to shift to another one.
Third, since the original book was in the horror genre, it's to be expected that there are some scares to be had. However, as I read this book, I couldn't help but wonder if the writer's knew what horror was, since the main ways the book employs to scare the reader involve a lot of blood and gore. Blood and gore might scare some people, but it ultimately becomes a bore, and when that isn't scary to a reader, it sends them away in disgust instead. What ever happened to the original's more subtle methods of instilling fear? The stuff you don't see is scarier than the stuff you do see.
And there's the abridged version of my review. The lack of faith to the source material, boring plot and confusing blood and gore for horror dragged it down. If there's one thing I can say from my original review, it's this: if Bram Stoker was around when this book was being written, there is no way he would've let this pass.