14 things we're glad aren't in the Dracula book sequel

Contributed by
Dec 14, 2012, 4:09 PM EST

Perhaps jumping on the bloodsucking bandwagon, a descendant of Bram Stoker—the Irish theater empresario who kicked off the whole vampire thing in his 1897 novel Dracula—has co-authored a sequel, Dracula: The Un-Dead.

Here's how the French news service AFP reported it:

Dracula: The Un-Dead, which runs to almost 500 pages, is the fruit of an unlikely six-year collaboration between Canadian Dacre Stoker [Bram's great-grandnephew] and Ian Holt, a New York screenwriter enamoured of vampires. ..

It was Holt—whose passion for all things vampire stems from Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 Dracula movie—who initially came up with the idea of a sequel to the Irish writer's 19th century work. ...

In 2003, he came up with the idea of getting backing for a sequel from the Stoker family, who had lost the rights to it early in the 20th century. And Dacre, one of a score of close family scattered across Britain, Ireland, Canada and the United States, signed on.

The book goes back to the original, which was written in epistolary form (that is, letters and diary entries, etc.). The sequel is set in 1912, 25 years after the finale of the first book, as a series of murders in London and Paris triggers a vampire hunt across Europe.

Herewith a list of things we're glad are NOT in the book:

♦Sparkly vampires

♦Teen girls

♦Teen vampires

♦Teen girl vampire slayers


♦Teen werewolves


♦Tight leather jumpsuits. Well, OK, we could have used a tight leather jumpsuit.

♦Funny vampires

♦Southern vampires

♦Little kid vampires

♦A vampire who tells a non-vampire, "You know all that stuff you've heard about vampires? It's all bull."

♦Winona Ryder