Dracula "sequel" in the works.

I was browsing around trying to find more literature based around Dracula and Vampires in general and came across this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/06/dracula.dacre.stoker.undead

An official sequel to the original 1897 novel, 111 years later, written by a member of the Stoker family.

The book picks up in 1912, many years after the events of the first novel and follows existing characters as well as several new ones, the back stories and biographies taken from Bram's original notes and manuscripts.

Now I'm a big Dracula fan, and the fact that another Stoker is in charge having spent years pouring over the source material for "the" book, I'm still apprehensive to a sequel after over a century.

 

Will movie be titled Dracula 2001?

 

Dracula 2000 was released in the UK and Europe as Dracula 2001 so no.

The book and film will both carry the name "Dracula: The Un-Dead" which was to be the name of the first novel until an editor asked Stoker to change it to just "Dracula".

 

Just being a member of the Stoker family has to do squat with being able to write.

I've got great singers in my family yet i can't carry a tune if my life depended on it and the same applies to writing.

This is a simple cash in on a famous book and i hate it.

 

Smart editor. Sounds odd though, did they even title books like that back then?

 

I'm sure this will do about as well as the 'Gone With the Wind' sequel from a decade or so back.

 

Worse:

The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders, Etc. Who Was Born In Newgate, and During a Life of Continu'd Variety For Threescore Years, Besides Her Childhood, Was Twelve Year a Whore, Five Times a Wife [Whereof Once To Her Own Brother], Twelve Year a Thief, Eight Year a Transported Felon In Virginia, At Last Grew Rich, Liv'd Honest, and Died a Penitent. Written from her own Memorandums

 

I may pick it up, though I wonder how well it'll do.

 

Well, this certainly sounds interesting, if nothing else. I think it's great that they're drawing on Stoker's notes and unpublished material; it seems to be a respectful and sincere attempt at a continuation. I'm sure I'll pick it up.

 

It does, from what reading around I've done, the book will be based entirely off of the material not used from the first book and Bram's own outlines for the existing characters pasts and paths he would have liked them to take after the defeat of Dracula.

As I pointed out on another board the first novel did have an epilogue where the remains of Dracula have gone missing, an ominous ending designed to be followed up on. I think Bram died before he could do so.

 

I think that was the first "cover blurb" but was accidentally put on the front by the unprepared printers.

 

It's true, we certainly wouldn't want the reputation of "Dracula" besmirched by some kind of exploitation or cheap knockoff.

 

I think we should keep an open mind until we see it.

 

Actually, Stoker's original title was simply "The Un-Dead," not "Dracula: The Un-Dead."

And Stoker had no children, so I assume this is the ancestor of a distant cousin or something.

 

True. This reminds me of the remake of The Time Machine from a few years back, when so much attention was given to the fact that the movie was directed by the great-grandson of H. G. Wells, as though that kinship conferred upon him some instant ability to direct a major motion picture.

 

Yes, the title of the new novel is a combination of both titles (the proposed one and the final one). And it is his great grand nephew writing it.

 

Can someone mention this to Brian Herbert?