Worst F-ing Book Ever

Ok...it might not be THE worst book ever, but it makes a solid showing in the bottom three of anything I've ever read. There's a piece of advice everyone should follow, and I don't care if there's an exception or two, never...ever...read anything by the child, grandchild, or grandnephew (or niece) of a good author. Just don't do it. Not if they're Tolkien's kid. Not if they're Herbert's kid. And not if they're the grandnephew of Bram Stoker. Primarily, what I take away from this monstrosity (I use that word intending that you know the book is more horrific as a work than the subject is) is that Bram Stoker shouldn't have reproduced. No...that's not right. Bram Stoker's father shouldn't have reproduced. It would have saved me a lot of anguish. Dracula is bad. Not a bad book. The character is bad. He's evil. He's anathema to God. Trying to repurpose him as a hero of God who was maligned by Elizabeth Bathory, a villain who can turn into an f-ing dragon...that's idiotic. I don't give a shit about spoilers. Did you know that Lucy only became a vampire because Van Helsing screwed up a blood transfusion and Dracula manned up and tried to save her the only way he knew how? You didn't get that out of Dracula? Go figure. Did you realize that Mina got pregnant by Dracula, and her son was his offspring, half human, half vampire? Wait...you thought that was Wesley Snipes in Blade? He wasn't the original! Did you know that the real evil was that Elizabeth Bathory was a lesbian and she hated God for taking away her lovers and her children, so the natural outcome was to kill young women and the children of other women? Makes perfect sense.

I should cut Dacre Stoker some slack. He wrote this piece of shit with a fanboy, Ian Holt. So he's not alone in the blame. Herbert's kid pulled a similar move. It's proof fanboys can't write anything. No...don't argue. If you're a fanboy, then fuck you. Even if you're a good writer, the fact that you self-identify as a fanboy, or are identified as a fanboy, taints you in a way I can't undo. If you don't believe me, check out Amazon. There aren't many books that don't have a few fans, and this one has an amazing number of 1 ratings. You can check the reviews...I don't need to recapture all of that here. The vitriol is 45 ratings deep, if you don't include the 2's.

What really pushed the novel over the edge (admittedly, for me) was the explanatory text by Holt and Stoker at the end of the novel. I quote (393), "Dracula the Un-Dead is a multifaceted sequel to a multilayered novel." NOT IF YOU HAVE TO TELL US IT IS. Assholes. Why don't you just tell me it's an enigma wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in a big piece of poorly written crap and be done with the Winston Churchill references? And (407), "We have long stated that one of the key reasons for writing this sequel was to remedy the cannibalization and bastardization of Bram's novel by Hollywood and other authors." The important part of that quote is "by other authors". They don't promise to remedy their own cannibalization and bastardization which are egregious.

I watched so many vampire movies as a kid. I loved the Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing movies I could watch on Saturdays, much like other kids watched cartoons. As bad as those movies were. As young as I was. We would have all agreed that Dracula the Un-Dead didn't deserve to be one of those movies, and shouldn't be any part of a vampire canon.

I should have read She Says' Stones novel instead.