Vlad Dracula Had Taken London

~Anno Dracula~
Book 1
By Kim Newman
Amazon ~ Powell's

It is 1888 and Queen Victoria has remarried, taking as her new consort Vlad Tepes, the Wallachian Prince infamously known as Count Dracula. Peppered with familiar characters from Victorian history and fiction, the novel follows vampire Geneviève Dieudonné and Charles Beauregard of the Diogenes Club as they strive to solve the mystery of the Ripper murders.


It's that time of the month again. No, not that, I mean it's time for the next vampire book for Maven of the Eventide's (aka Elisa Hansen's) Vampire Book Club! Of the three choices in the poll, this was definitely the most interesting to me. Jack the Ripper and various literary vampires all thrown together—what could possibly go wrong?

Honestly, it depends on your perspective. I really didn't have any problems with the premise of the book, with the grand mash-up of Victorian characters, both real and fictional, thrown together in an England ruled by Dracula. That part was actually very cool, if a bit wasted on me not knowing a majority of the players. No, really, check out how many places Newman borrowed from and tell me you've read/seen all of them. Even having read/seen Dracula before, I had to consult the back-of-the-book annotations and a bit of wikipedia to fully recognize all the characters again. And considering the multitude of other properties that were referenced that I haven't experienced (Sherlock Holmes had quite a few), as well as historical figures I haven't heard of, I'll admit I was a bit lost at times.

That's not to say that this knowledge is necessary going in (though I'd argue that a passing knowledge of Dracula is extremely helpful), but I think a well-knowledged person on the time period might get more enjoyment from the constant call-backs, inserts, and references than a passing layman like myself. After discovering the Sherlock Holmes references, for example, each and every name made me think I was missing out on some wink to the audience because no further explanation was given. Sure, given the vast multitude, it wasn't like the story could stop each and every time to give a backstory or reference, but I guess I'd have appreciated a footnote now and then. But I guess that would ruin the game that has apparently arisen, according to the author's afterword anyway.

Okay, I guess I am complaining a bit about the format. It's just not what I'm used to. I'm used to introducing a character or two, maybe four if you're talented, and then establishing their backstory, wants, needs, goals, and problems as they relate to other characters and/or the story. Anno Dracula instead gives us around 10 characters to follow for bits and pieces of time while this Jack the Ripper story is smashed together with vampires and politics. As such, I felt distracted from our two leads, Geneviève Dieudonné and Charles Beauregard, by the deluge of other players, leaving me unimpressed by them on the whole. I feel like I'm meant to care about them more, seeing as they continue into the sequels, but having spent so little time with them I just don't.

And that feeling bleeds over into our villain as well. Seeing as the first chapter immediately reveals his identity, name and all, it's obvious that this isn't a mystery story for us. So you'd think that maybe we'd get a feeling for Jack and his progression, how he plays with the police, how he continues to evade capture, maybe some psychological breakdown on him, or perhaps a method to his madness? Well, we really only experience him through diary entries, and those fall off in the later part of the book, giving us very little insight as his story progresses. And then his ending...well, it rang a bit hollow when all was said and done. Yet another character lost in the multitudes.

Moving away from the characters, however, the politics and setting were intriguing. As one who hasn't read much Victorian literature, I was captivated by the dichotomy of the well-off aristocrats and the slums of London. Sure, I've seen bits and pieces in other works, a well-to-do detective chasing a lead in a seedy part of town, but this one really focused on that border between worlds. With the Ripper murders targeting lowly prostitutes, you'd think they'd be swept under the rug, but with them also being vampires, well the newly-rising vampire class can't have that kind of dissent now can they?

Vampirism as a metaphor really got to stretch its legs in this one. Yes, there's still a lot of sex, sexual power, and sexual freedom wound up in these vampires, especially where some of the female main characters are concerned. But there's more nuance than that, as many of the new-borns of London are still suffering from poor living conditions, poor health, and no foreseeable way to change things. Vampirism is not seen as inherently monstrous, as I can't remember hearing of even one instance of people dying of fully being drained, but it's not salvation from death either. Those in the aristocracy see vampirism only for its usefulness because they are already privileged to reap its benefits and overcome any downsides, while those in poverty are rarely able to overcome the downsides to reach any benefits.

The vampires themselves had an interesting spin to them, as far as their powers or supernaturalness were concerned. Here the vampire abilities and strength are very much based in bloodlines, so if your mother/father-in-darkness, the one who gives you "the Dark Kiss", has an ability then you could also. The problems, diseases, malformations, and the like seem to occur the further diluted the blood becomes. Or maybe the source, Dracula, is also a source of the pollution—the science isn't fully explored here. On the whole a lot of vampire lore is thrown aside: sunlight isn't a death sentence to older, more experienced vampires; no vampire is immortal, though they are tougher to kill and have superior healing if blood is replenished; and religious paraphernalia isn't effective unless the vampire believes it to be.

The two aspects that are traditional about these vamps were hunger and silver. The vampiric bloodlust doesn't seem to be as deadly as other stories have it (there seemed to be no fear of death by exsanguination, even in the poor districts), but it is shown to be somewhat dangerous when Geneviève is injured later in the story, and when a new-born is at the point of near-starvation. I'm really not sure why the bloodlust didn't come up more, or show itself as a major downside to turning, but I guess its absence did help humanize the newly-turned population. Silver also helped in that respect, acting as the great equalizer, with it being harmful to touch and deadly to cut or penetrate the flesh, especially the heart. Wooden stakes also seemed to work well in subduing vampires, though, again, the science behind that wasn't explored. One vampire series I read required apple wood (or juice) because it linked back to the fall of Eve, but there's no explanation as to why wood works better than non-silver metals here.

There were a couple political decisions that confused me, and I'm still not sure I fully understand them. First was the new decree that sodomy was to be an offense punishable by death. I mean, I get why someone would issue that decree, just not why Dracula nor why it happened in this story. As the story progressed, I guess I saw it as a way to emphasize how the vampires didn't seem to have any camaraderie, that they'd throw one of their 'friends' to the wolves just to further their own gains, but I didn't really see much else it served. It wasn't until the author mentioned in the afterword how he was trying to pair the British 1980's politics with the book's setting of the 1880's that it sorta clicked, but not fully. Unless it factors into later books, I honestly don't know why they had anti-homosexual sentiment/laws in the book at all.

Another confusing decision, though not as political, was the choice to include a lot of anti-Chinese racism. There's an "evil league of evil" (thanks Maven) that plays a part in the story, led by Dr. Fu Manchu and some other famous literary baddies in the worst, most run-down part of London. This group seems involved in some of the political goings on in the book, but are mostly there to provide some background help and prodding to Charles. They also seem to have something to do with a Chinese hopping vampire that gets hired out as a hitman against Geneviève. As neat as the non-European vampire was to see included, there was a lot of seemingly unnecessary Chinese slurs and other racist thoughts regarding them that did nothing to serve the plot. Was it period-accurate, sure. Was it necessary for our characters and story to participate in it? No, thank you.

And on that note, I'm not sure if I'll be continuing the series. While there wasn't anything inherently bad in the story or writing, I can't say I was completely hooked in by either. With the Jack the Ripper storyline immediately revealed, it only left the how and when of the mystery to be discovered, and for anyone familiar with the history of the events even the when isn't much of a question. That left it on the characters to pull me in, and with so many vying for my constant attention and memory, I hardly felt much attachment to either lead. And while I was intrigued by the setting of the newly vampire-infused society, I don't know that that is enough to keep me for another book or five. Then again, maybe a 30-year time skip into WW1 is just what I need to keep the blood flowing? I don't know, maybe if I the club decides to continue or I had someone else to discuss with...

Overall, Anno Dracula had a lot of good things going for it, but definitely isn't for the faint of heart. It's not as character driven as I typically prefer, and could have done with some major pruning of excess characters and needless name-drops, but I'm sure literary buffs (especially of the Victorian era) or those well-versed in vampires would enjoy more of the references. And really, the story's main draw was its interesting exploration of vampires, their "attributes [as] addictions and handicaps rather than powers and potentials" (p. 403). So if you're looking for a vampire-infused romance or mystery you're better off elsewhere, but if you're craving a who's who cavalcade of vampires with a bit of political and moral intrigue on the side, then you might give this one a bite.