Dracula the Undead: Author's Note Part 1

Summary: An aperitif of the clusterfuckery that is to come. This is a long-winded and self-congratulating author’s note.

Both writers claim that their novel stays true to Bram Stoker’s vision even though it contradicts and re-writes the original story.

In case anyone wants to read the original author’s note in order to form their own conclusions, you can read it here.

~ Dacre’s Story ~

Since I am a Stoker, it is not surprising that I have had a lifelong interest in the work of my ancestor.

1. At the risk of sounding like a complete ass…
2. This “interest” is financially motivated.

Bram’s youngest brother, George, believed to be the sibling with whom he had the closest relationship, was my great-grandfather, so I am Bram’s great-grandnephew.

“Which means that I am related to Bram Stoker and can write an ‘official’ sequel to Dracula. And that will make me a shit-load of money.”

In college, I wrote a paper on my great granduncle,

1. I’m getting the impression that is statement is supposed to make Dacre Stoker sound unique…
2. Even though there are plenty of other college students who have written an essay about Bram Stoker or Dracula for an assignment.
3. For instance, yours truly did a PowerPoint presentation on Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley for a class in college.

examining what may have motivated him to write Dracula.

1. Again, this isn’t groundbreaking stuff.
2. Many people have published articles or books discussing Dracula.
3. Scholars like Professor Elizabeth Miller have dedicated their lives to studying it.

My research opened my eyes to how, from my family’s perspective, the history of the book Dracula, is pretty tragic.

“And before I give everyone a history lesson, I’m telling you all this so I can justify butchering my ancestor’s work.”

Bram Stoker died without ever seeing Dracula become popular. The sales of the novel were so limited at the time of his death that his widow, Florence, thought she would never benefit financially from Bram’s “wasted” seven years of research and writing. With Bram’s other fiction and nonfiction books out of print, Florence was convinced she would live out her days on a tight budget.

1. Actually, that isn’t true.
2. According to scholar John Edgar Browning, the majority of critics gave positive reviews.
3. His findings were published on February 1st, 2012.
4. It is important to note Dracula: The Undead was published in 2009.
5. But in an interview in 2013, Dacre Stoker said this: There is this statement that used to kind of drive me crazy—‘Dracula was met with mixed reviews when Bram was alive’.
6. He then briefly discusses Browning’s research.
7. Which means that Stoker knew about Browning’s findings…
8. But he ignored it and printed misinformation.

Dacre adds that it was only “ten years after Bram’s death” when Dracula became popular.

Posthumously, Bram started to receive recognition as the progenitor of the modern vampire/horror novel.

1. Not to diminish Dracula and its impact on popular culture…
2. But it is not the first influential vampire novel.
3. Varney the Vampire is.

Dacre Stoker goes on to talk about Florence Stoker (Bram Stoker’s wife) and her legal dispute with the creators of Nosferatu.

He also states that Dracula became public domain in the U.S.A since 1899 because Bram didn’t complete a requirement so Florence Stoker had to live off the U.K. royalties.

With the U.S. copyright lost, Hollywood, corporate America, and anyone else was free to do whatever they wanted to Bram’s story and characters.

1. This is the part where the reader is supposed to boo and hiss at Hollywood…
2. And then give Holt and Stoker a standing ovation for writing Dracula the Undead.

Dacre Stoker talks about how his family wasn’t asked for approval of “any of the hundreds of incarnations of Dracula over the next century.”

My father’s generation had a negative feeling for all things Hollywood andDracula.

1. Which is understandable given what happened.
2. But after reading the author’s note…
3. The history of Dracula is being used in order to deflect any criticism.
4. And to justify bastardizing Dracula under the pretense of honoring Bram’s original vision and righting a past wrong.

—except, of course, for Bram’s original novel.

So we have two options:

1. They knowingly endorsed a novel that defamed Bram and mocked the original novel.
2. Or they loved Dracula and would be appalled that Bram was dragged through the mud and the original lore was ridiculed.

According to Ian Holt in an interview in 2010, he says that “Bram’s bitter demeanor was even worse in real life than we depicted in the novel.”

And in the same interview, Holt passively aggressively says: “Do your research. The fact that the chapters with Bram were written almost completely by Dacre in consultation with his family means nothing to them.”

So yeah…

I’m leaning towards option number one.

I didn’t write about these issues in my college paper, but they were always on my mind.

Dacre Stoker admitted that he didn’t read Dracula until he went to college.

Stoker says it was “a shame” that his family was unable to “control the legacy of my great-granduncle” and “lay claim to the character of Dracula.”

It was many years after college that I met an interesting character, Ian Holt.

Stoker doesn’t realize that calling someone “an interesting character” can be a veiled insult.

Ian is a screenwriter who has been obsessed with all things Dracula since childhood.

1. A lot of people love all things Dracula.
2. Doesn’t mean that they are a talented writer.

Ian, being a true idealist, had a plan that inspired me to not accept the frustrating history of Dracula.

“He was my knight in shining armor!”

He wanted to change history.

1. History reveals that change isn’t always positive.
2. Sometimes it is negative.

Ian’s plan was simple: to reestablish creative control over Bram’s novel and characters by writing a sequel that bore the Stoker name.

To my surprise, none in my family had ever considered this.

1. Translation: “Why haven’t any of my family members tried writing a novel? It’s the obvious solution to the problem."
2. And it didn’t occur to Stoker none of his family members had any interest in being a writer.
3. It really pisses me off when people act like writing any kind of fiction is easy or that anyone can be a writer.
4. While any literate person can write, not everyone can be a writer.
5. It requires talent and passion along with the desire to learn about the craft and improve your writing skills.

Intrigued, I decided to join Ian on a roller-coaster ride as coauthor.

And for readers, it is a nightmarish ride where clusterfuckery gallops and a literary classic is violently raped.

In writing Dracula the Un-Dead, I felt a strong sense of duty and familial responsibility.

"It isn’t because I wanted to piss all over my relative’s legacy and make a shit load of money.”

I hoped to work with Ian to represent Bram’s vision for the character ofDracula.

Bram’s vision should be called Sir Not Appearing in This Novel.

We aimed to resurrect Bram’s original themes and characters, just as Bram conceived them more than a century ago.

1. The Dracula characters appear in name only.
2. They are cast in an unfavorable light.
3. As for the themes?
4. They are discarded.

So many books and films had strayed from Bram’s vision—

1. It is extremely rare for adaptations to stick extremely close to the original story.
2. Usually, adaptations take artistic license with the source material.
3. And just because an adaptation or a retelling differs from the original story, doesn’t mean that it will automatically suck.
4. For instance, I like films, mangas, and video games that are inspired by/loosely based on Dracula.

and thus our intent was to give both Bram and Dracula back their dignity in some small way.

1. Dracula is depicted as a misunderstood man with fangs who is every woman’s erotic dream.
2. And readers are supposed to despise Bram.

I think Bram would be proud that a family member has taken this initiative, and finally done justice to the legacy he created.

Bram would be livid that his work was bastardized and that his descendant depicted him as a desperate and a talentless hack.

~ Ian’s Story ~

I am not ashamed to say it, I LOVE horror films.

1. Ah, all-caps.
2. How I loathe thee.
3. A lot of people like horror and it is a popular genre.
4. So that doesn’t make you unique.
5. And horror movies are no longer considered depraved or scandalous.

Holt mentions that his favorite horror movie as a kid was Dracula (1931).

When I was ten years old, my mother bought me a record for Halloween with Christopher Lee narrating the story of Dracula by Bram Stoker. Reading that record sleeve changed my life, for it was then I learned that Transylvania was an actual place and that Dracula was a historical figure.

1. Where do I begin?
2. If you are LISTENING to an audiobook, you are not READING IT.

Ian was “inspired” by the audiobook that he decided to read Dracula.

I was surprised at how different the novel was from the films—and I had seen every Dracula film ever made.

“Who knew that Count Dracula swings both ways? Or that Mina is an assertive and intelligent woman and not a stupid Dracula fangirl?”

The novel was more intelligent, astute, and dark.

While this literary abomination is a cash-grab filled with gratuitous gore and sex.

The novel had more intricate and exciting characters than I could have ever imagined.

While Dracula the Undead has depraved lesbian vampires and a whiny prat along with a handsome and misunderstood vampire who only wants tru luv.

I felt cheated by Hollywood. I vowed revenge!

1. I get it, Holt and Stoker.
2. I’m supposed to hate Hollywood but adore your literary travesty.

Fifteen years later, my opportunity came.

And Dracula fans wished that it never arrived.

Flipping channels one night, I came upon a program on the making of Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

I’m getting the sneaking suspicion that this story will result in name dropping.

And Holt insisting that he is a scholar.

On the program, Coppola held up the 1972 book In Search of Draculawritten by Fulbright Scholars Professor Raymond McNally and Professor Radu Florescu (Prince Dracula’s actual descendant).

1. Vlad the Impaler is also known as Vlad III, Vlad Dracul or Vlad Dracula.
2. Sometimes he is referred to as Vlad III of Wallachia or Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia.
3. But I have never heard of any scholar referring to Vlad III as “Prince Dracula.”
4. A quick Google search reveals only this book and a YA novel called Hunting Prince Dracula.
5. Every time I see Vlad III being mentioned as “Prince Dracula”, I can’t keep a straight face.
6. Because it reminds me of Beni Gabor calling Imhotep his “prince."

Coppola had used the professors’ research of the historical Prince Dracula’s life as inspiration for the opening sequence of his film.

And he discarded the rest of it in order to make Dracula a guy who is looking for his one tru luv.

Before taking a breath I was on a plane to Boston College to meet the professors. After showing them some notes on the screenplay I planned to write based on their book,

"I smelled an opportunity to make some money!”

the professors sold me the rights for one dollar

“They were impressed my awesomeness!”

The friendship I forged with McNally and Florescu has borne fruit in many ways. I soon began traveling with the professors giving lectures on the impact of Bram Stoker’s novel on our culture.

According to Dracula the Undead on the official Penguin Publishing House website, Ian is being described as:

1. There is a BIG difference between being a fan, a historian, and a documentarian.
2. A quick Google search reveals that Ian Holt has not published anything in an academic journal.
3. However, one of the first things that pop up in an internet search is this.

This garnered me an invitation to speak at The First World Dracula Congress in Bucharest, Romania, in 1995—a gathering of Dracula/horror scholars from around the world.

1. I don’t doubt that Holt went to The First World Dracula Congress.
2. But I don’t think he was a speaker.
3. Elizabeth Miller wrote a report about the gathering.
4. And Ian Holt isn’t mentioned among the speakers.

Holt went sightseeing in Romania and how he made “the dream I had as a ten-year-old come true.”

Thanks to the friends I made at the First World Dracula Congress, I was asked to join the Transylvanian Society of Dracula—a scholarly organization dedicated to the study of all things Dracula.

1. We get it, Ian Holt.
2. You want us to think that you are a scholar because you are friends with scholars and historians.
3. But I don’t think a scholar would be constantly name-dropping.

Through friends in the society I met Professor Elizabeth Miller, the world’s foremost authority on all things vampire, Dracula, and Bram.

“And I’ll use my scholar friends as a shield to deal with criticism.”

Professor Miller asked me to speak at the Dracula convention in Los Angeles in 1997, where we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the release of Bram’s novel.

According to a report on the 1997 Dracula convention in Los Angeles, Holt isn’t mentioned as being one of the speakers.

Holt says during the convention he came up with an idea to write a sequel to Dracula. He admits that a Dracula sequel isn’t a new idea.

But a Dracula sequel was never written with “input from a member of the Stoker family.”

Holt goes on to say that “securing that input became my goal” and contacted the Stoker family patriarch.

Still scarred by the Nosferatu copyright affair and years of being ignored and abused by Hollywood, the members of this generation of the Stoker family wanted nothing to do with me.

1. I could be wrong…
2. But I’m getting a strong feeling that Holt was miffed that some members of the Stokers didn’t want to touch him with a ten-foot pole.
3. Especially since Holt said the Stoker family at “long last” supported the idea for an official sequel.

But I wouldn’t give up.

Holt says how he “kept building up my film-writing résumé and Dracula connections.” He eventually meets Dacre Stoker.

I pitched him my sequel idea, which at the time I had been planning as a screenplay. Dacre was enthusiastic and suggested that the proper way to proceed was with a book first.

1. If it is a novel, then it will be proper lit-ra-choor.
2. Because a movie wouldn’t be “deep” or “elevated”.

Both Dacre and Ian agreed to a writing partnership.

And Dacre contacted his family members and presented them with the sequel proposal.

Once it was understood that this would be a labor of love,

“We gleefully shit all over the original lore and insist that it was all a lie.”

our intentions honorable, and that our plan was to restore to the world Bram’s original vision and characters,

If that was the case, then:

1. The original lore of Dracula wouldn’t be repeatedly violated.
2. The Crew of Light wouldn’t be depicted in an unflattering light.
3. And Bram Stoker wouldn’t be vilified.

the Stokers offered support, at long last.

Translation: They finally appreciated my genius!

Dracula the Un-Dead is the culmination of my lifelong dream and years of hard work.

“And why is the Devil laughing and doing a victory dance?”

It is my gift to every horror nut out there.

If by “gift”, you mean a literary turd, then I agree with you.

My greatest wish is we have created a book that is close to Bram’s original gothic vision

1. “Close to Bram’s original gothic vision”?
2. Hell no!
3. It contradicts the original story and reads like a shitty Coppola’s Draculafanfic.

—while modernizing it at the same time.

By stealing a twist from The Empire Strikes Back and copying a scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Believe me, I realize how lucky I am.

And readers will regard this novel as a plague upon mankind.

I have been truly blessed that in some small way, my name will be linked with

a mean-spirited and shitty novel.

that of my hero, Bram Stoker—

I’m not convinced that Dacre or Ian regard Bram as their hero.

Here is an excerpt from the novel:

“If there were to be any truth to Stoker’s novel it would have to be where no sunlight could ever reach.”

Translation: you can stick it where the sun don’t shine.

the man who invented modern horror.

1. I’ll say it again…
2. Stoker wasn’t the only one who invented modern horror.
3. Some of the other writers were Edgar Allen Poe, Ann Radcliffe, Sheridan Le Fanu, Algernon Blackwood, and H.P. Lovecraft.