J. S. BarnesCritiques

I really enjoyed this, a great continuation to the Island of Dr. Moreau. We see the events from different characters, each one morally grey. I liked the way the plot kept twisting and changing.

The gothic setting was good. The story held to the nature of Dracula. I personally don't like journal based novels.

Thank you NetGalley and Titan Books for this ARC!

I liked this book. It was well written and well paced and is a worthy sequel to the original. I liked the way the author wrote this book in the same style as the original and didn’t try to add “modern” tones to the narrative. As the story is set at the turn of the twentieth century, inventions such as the car are included, but they don’t take over the story. There are no new fangled, high tech ways to trying to defeat the Count here. Speaking of the Count I wish there had been more of an appearance of him in the story. He’s more in the background in this novel. But all in all an enjoyable read.

It is never easy to write a sequel to a classic novel but J.S. Barnes managed to pull it off. I actually managed to reread Dracula before I read Dracula's Child so it was interesting to be able to compare the original novel to the sequel written by a modern author.
Dracula's Child is written in much the same format as Dracula. The writing style is so similar to the orginal novel as is the way language is used.
It has the same dark, claustrophobic, and gothic feel to it which is impressive considering it was written 123 years later than the original classic.
I would recommend reading or rereading Dracula itself so you can understand the plot but this is really a fitting successor to Dracula.

Disclaimer: I was given a free copy of this book by the publisher in return for an honest review.

You might feel Dracula doesn't need another sequel, and you'd probably be right, but J. S. Barnes' addition to the uncanon is smart enough to make it worth your time.

Bram Stoker's book has probably had more sequels, prequels, reimaginings and spin-offs than any other single novel – Dracula comes back, it's what he does. One of Barnes's first clever decisions is to make that repetition an overt part of the narrative. Much of this book's horror comes from the idea of a traumatic period in one's life suddenly intruding on the present, like a nightmare come to life. It's a psychological horror and one that reflects the returning characters' increased age and sense of responsibility.

But this isn't just a rerun. The book's most interesting thread is one of full-blooded satire. It's an often overlooked aspect of Stoker's novel that it played on contemporary fears of the precariousness of British values and supremacy. In his book, Barnes brings that satire up to date, having Dracula rise to power on a wave of populism, national insecurity and xenophobia. Privileged members of government present themselves as champions of the people as they undermine democratic institutions, while a compliant press affirms readers' worst prejudices in the names of circulation.

It's great stuff, well done, and the book's strongest thread.

The one weak bit of the story is ironically the one on which the novel's publicity focuses. The story of Quincey Harker feels underdeveloped and, as a result, quite generic (echoes of The Omen in both cover and text). There are flashes of how it ties into that broader satirical stroke ("The young must be sacrificed as was the rite of Abraham") but they are only flashes and, as a result, what's apparently meant to be the main story feels more like a subplot.

But it is just one weak element. You might come for the paedophobic horror, but you'll stay for the satire – red in tooth and claw.

It was such a dense book. I felt like the author spent more time describing the characters themselves than the events leading up to the main events. The action literally didn't start until pages 350-400...... The author spent 300+ pages leading up to the climax.... I feel like the concept and ideas were there but it just dragged. It honestly took so long to get through due to the density of simple day matters and me missing plot points so I had to re-read sections.