And, of course, to facilitate an actual discussion with spoilers.

The pacing and plot are what initially drew me in to the story and the descriptive depth surrounding everything added believability and realism to an overdone story line. I liked the overall creepiness that saturated the writing without outright gore and horror and it was definitely a book to savor over several days. However, the pacing kept me turning the pages to see what would happen next.
Overall, more of a suspense mystery than a horror story.
The characters were interesting and arrived on the scene with enough space to develop and understand each new face without overloading the book with unnecessary people (Ok, maybe Barley)

I particularly enjoyed the narrative within a narrative within a narrative and thought it was easy enough to follow.

Things that were clear as mud to me that I probably missed and story highlights to ponder:

Was dracula actually killed? With the arrival of the last dragon book, was that indicating that he is still alive?
Why didn't he die?

Does the daughter have a sad life afterwards? Where is Barley, just passin' through?

The bite of a dracula, why do they want to bite the same person again and again? To have company in the netherworld?

Why did dracula deliver these books to the living and not bite them three times? They would have followed willing then.
The librarian obviously wanted to find the tomb. Why didn’t dracula want him to find himself?

Helen: is she realistic? I did like the old fashioned reserve between the couple. More in keeping with the time period than if they had hopped between the sheets on the first meeting. The descriptions of their clothes, hair, and grooming were interesting.
If Helen is a descendent, is that what drew the librarian to her other than the map bait?

Why garlic, silver pistols and crucifixes? (Although the crucifix is obvious)Annoyed that this was never explined.

Turgut: Contrived, but fascinating. Why wasn't he targeted by Dracula to get rid of him?

Hugh James' character was not developed enough for me considering his final role.

Rossi: The amnesia bit seemed contrived also but the true love was even harder to believe considering their different backgrounds. The final scene in the tomb was poignant when Helen kills him.

Paul: Does he go back to kill Helen after she dies a natural death? Why, if she had only been bitten twice? Can a dead person be bitten a third time?

Bits I really enjoyed:
The initial encounter with Stoichecv and his realization of their mission. The same with turget

Rossi's narrative of his capture and reason: the cataloging of dracula’s library. Novel plot turn.
Finding him in the selpchure and their conversation.

The Saint George and the Dragon book and how it changed Paul's and Helen's future.
Paul's' first conversation with Rossi, Helen and Turget and Helen's mother.

And chapter 59- ughh! I admit, I skipped it.

I really like the way Elizabeth Kostova writes; the words seemed to wash over me as I read, pulling the story along but taking time to describe in detail each environment.
I took longer to read this book than usual (even allowing for the size of the book - all 642 pages!), but this was because I took it slowly and savoured it.

On finishing the book, I do have some questions:

We are never told the daughter's name, or their surname - I wonder if there was a reason for this?

Who did bite Helen while asleep the the monastery (the second bite)?

Was it ever determined how the head and body where reconciled?

Why did the librarian have to follow Paul/Helen to find Dracula's lair? As he was already undead, wouldn't he know? Did he want Rossi's 'job' as cataloguer of Dracula's library?

Why did Hugh James cry out 'Elsie....' as he was dying?

Does the ending suggest a sequel? Should there be a sequel?

Finally, I agree with bumblebeez in that the character of Hugh James needed a bit of fleshing out - he suddenly popped up at the end out of nowhere! And I too skimmed through chapter 59, although I suppose it did clarify the nature of the pilgrimage.

Jane
UK

Re the daughter's name, the book does say she was named after Helen's mother, but I don't remember it ever telling us what her mother's name was (i don't think it does). I assumed the daughter had Paul's surname, and I would have to go back through the book to find it. I think it might have been mentioned once or twice.

Re Helen's second bite, it did seem to me as though it was implied that she was not bitten by the librarian, but by Dracula himself due to her special familial relationship. At least I interpreted it that way.

Re a sequel: I hope not. I like the way it ended and I have a hard time imagining Kostova wanting to follow up with a sequel (maybe the publisher might want that, but hopefully Kostova will not). I think Sony bought the film rights to this book. Can you imagine making this into a movie? I can't imagine how they would do it without butchering it considerably.

My favorite bits:

This may sound corny, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I liked how she set up Dracula to be a metaphor for history as something that never really dies, no matter how hard we might try to bury the moments too terrible or shameful to remember and how easily history can be repeated and the horrors of the past invoked from seemingly innocent gestures. The conversation between Rossi and Dracula was most interesting to me because of this. I read some reviews that felt the ending fizzled, but I found it quite chilling because of that. And, of course, I loved the descriptions of the countries which made me feel as though I was right there, and her attention to the minor details, such as the description of Dracula's boots. I'm sure I'll think of other things I want to say, but I've probably rambled enough for now.

To try to answer some of the questions above:

I think Barley was put into the novel for 2 reasons: symmetry (he was the facilitator to bring the daughter from girlhood to womanhood, in a sense) and for plausibility (e.g. in that time frame, it would have been outlandish and unseemly for a young women to have been prowling around on her own, thus the creation of a "protector". Also Barley was linked to Master James....

Master James called out "Elsie" at the end as a reference to his former love, Elspeth, mentioned earlier in the novel. Elsie was his fiancee; their relationship ended sadly after her car accident in England when she saw an apparition and swerved. This story was told to the male protagonist.

As for chapter 59, I can understand why someone might skip it. I had to force myself to read it and am still not sure I actually "got" it. This was the one point that the book began to lose me. It just seemed too "Byzantine" (pun intended!)

Which reminds me that these nested stories had a distinctly eastern and Byzantine feeling, which was intentionally clever on the part of the author.

As for the use of garlic: it's a well-known (in Europe) folk remedy to ward off sickness, devils, evil in general. When I visited Italy, I learned of this, and some older villagers wore garlic around their necks. The same in Greece.In actuality, raw garlic does indeed have medicinal properties. I have European friends who imbibe it religiously!

As for the name of Helen's mother: was it not "Getzi"? (I thought one narrator said that Vlad's line had almost died out and intermarried with Hungarians by that name). I assumed Helen's last name was Rossi. (?)

As an aside, I am reading the book twice, because for me it was just too much to take in all at once and keep all the stories straight. I am glad I am, because I had missed the Master James connection at the beginning, middle and end. But of course, anyone who had one of the dragon books served as a "mentor" to another one, etc. etc.

Now, finally, I am still trying to piece together the monk stuff and Cyril.

To sum up, perhaps I loved this book so much because of its complexity. It certainly was and is a challenge to get my mind around all the rich historical detail....

What I am trying to get my head around is the fact that this brutal man was in many ways a fine leader. We all learned during the Serbian conflict just how much irreconcilable differences make cooperation among the peoples of that region nigh on to impossible. Is brutality the only way to force them into a unified front to fight off even worse invaders?

As far as the garlic and silver bullet, I was wondering the origins of the use. Garlic will certainly keep most people away for sure..whenever I eat it my husband won't come near me!

"During 1912 and 1913 it became involved in the Balkan Wars, a series of conflicts with its neighbours, during which Bulgarian territory varied in size. During World War I and later World War II, Bulgaria found itself fighting on the losing side. Despite that fact, Bulgaria saved the lives of its own 50,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps by refusing to comply with a 31 August 1943 resolution, which demanded their deportation to Auschwitz."

"Bulgaria fell within the Soviet sphere of influence after World War II and became a People's Republic in 1946. Communist domination ended in 1990, when Bulgaria again held multiparty elections."

Back on topic, though, I also felt the letters Helen wrote to her daughter were quite beautiful and poignant. They really helped round out her character.

For anyone interested, I've provided a link about the life of Vlad III by Elizabeth Miller who has written several books on this subject.

I also searched for the main character's name for quite a while, and to the best of my knowledge, it's never revealed. Helen's mother's family name was Getzi, but her first name is never revealed. As the author obviously did this purposefully, I wonder what her reason was. To make our heroine Everywoman?

I did like the old fashioned reserve between the couple. More in keeping with the time period than if they had hopped between the sheets on the first meeting. The descriptions of their clothes, hair, and grooming were interesting. I really liked this aspect of the story, too. Paul's comments on Helen's Eastern European ability to look fairly fresh and groomed despite their lack of extra clothing and laundry service was a detail that caught me.

Another small segment of the book stuck with me, too. When Rossi and his guide went to the ruins to spend the night and saw a light in the forest, they nearly stumbled into a secret meeting of early Nazis (called St. Michael's (?) knights or something like that), they struck me as being even more frightening than the vampires, humans scarier than immortals.

I, too, hoped that Barley would stick around and be mentioned as her husband or long-lost love or even still a penpal -- something to tie him up as a loose end.

As for the book she received at the end -- initially I wasn't entirely convinced it was sent by Dracula. I mean, didn't his head explode and his body turn to dust? What do you have to do to kill this guy? (My apologies if I'm remembering this incorrectly, it's been a while since I read it). For a split second I wondered if the book was from Helen, though it was made pretty clear that her father put a silver stake through Helen's heart after she died. Or perhaps it was from one of Dracula's surviving minions? Evil is never eradicated, of course, but Vlad Dracula seemed to be. But then if it truly was from Dracula, what was the point of everything her parents and Rossi went through?

I do intend to re-read this at some point, I really liked it a lot. She's a terrific storyteller, and I hope she has another great novel in her -- not a sequel, though, I think the story ends where it should.

As fearful as Dracula was, our imagination multiplies that fear, which is why I found the final book at the end to be scary. It is beyond imagination that he had survived, but now we fear that he did which makes him scarier than ever.

Last night, in re-reading, I came across the exact place in the novel where Helen does say she is using the last name of "Rossi." It is towards the end.

Was anyone else fooled by the preface/introduction the way I was? I read it first, of course, not noticing the date of 2008, and assumed it was the usual author's thanks to scholars who had helped in her research for the book. Then, later, I re-read it and noticed the scholars were names such as Turgut Bora, et al. characters in the book! Also, the 2nd time, my eye was caught by the last line: something about the tale being a "cri de coeur". (hard to translate from the French, but it suggests endurance of great pain). Or literally a "cry from the heart."

I agree that part of its great power lies in the suggestion that Vlad, as the embodiment of human evil never dies, but is reborn with personnages such as Hitler, Stalin, et al.

And for me, one of the scariest parts of the book, apart from the ending, was when Paul and his gypsy guide were on the mountaintop at night at the old ruin and intruded upon the meeting of the "Nazi" forerunners, gathered around a fire. These could well have been "brownshirts", as it was 1930.

As for Dracula never dying, this is really grasping at straws, but do you think the books that get distributed mysteriously have anything to do with awakening his spirit? It was just a fleeting thought that I had.

I also agree that the part with the proto-Nazis is one of the most chilling scenes and just reinforces that evil isn't necessarily a "supernatural" force.

BTW, remember the charm given Helen when she first meets Turget Bora? (the blue eye of the Crusader). These actually exist in places like Greece. I have seen them for sale as charms, to ward off evil and our local Greek Festival sells them annually, although I bet most have not a clue as to their historical origin!

Re the tatoo, you'll see a brief reference to Helen's tatoo in chapter 49. It's the chapter that inserts a very private letter by her father about the intimate life he had with Helen. It says, "... I found your single blemish - the one place, perhaps, I never kissed - the tiny curling dragon on the wing of your shoulder blade."

I wondered also about Barley's eventual disappearance, except that, as I wrote above, I think he was a connector, a facilitator between Master James,Paul, and the daughter.

But what do you make of the final scene, when the daughter (now grown and middle-aged) is also given her own copy of the book by the librarian? Interesting that it is the "Librarians" who seem to be the ones who are passing these dragon books along the generations. Now she is off on her own quest for the 2nd time, and her own encounter with Vlad??? That is why I cannot see a sequel coming, as it would go on and on and on....

Again, toward the final chapters: what did you make of Vlad telling the head Monk that there was this monastery in France which had learned to "outwit death by secret means". Are we to believe that this was the "art of vampirism" for want of a better word? Why France? Why Latin monks who discovered this secret of "eternal life"? Seems to shift the emphasis (or burden) from the Eastern Orthodox Church to the Western one of Rome....

About the death of Rossi: are we to then think that he had to be killed by Paul and Helen because he was defiant toward Vlad and thus had been bitten again? What I am trying to get at is that had he not been defiant, he might still be among the "undead", cataloging Vlad's library, then later out in the world, fulfilling Vlad's mission of ultimate Evil?

One aside, I think the name given "Eva" was symbolic. (e.g. Eve = Eva, the earth mother, quintessential, original female presence).

Don't you think that Dracula has some sort of legacy organization that keeps functioning and handing out books based upon criteria he established long ago? Would everyone in that organization even know he was gone? He strikes me as someone who would have disappeared from even his followers for years at a time.

Woodnymph, I'm not sure I understand your point about the killing of Rossi. I was pretty clear on the fact that he did not want to work with Vlad and would rather have been dead and gone. Are you saying, girlfriend, that you would have greedily accepted your fate as the undead in order to catalog /read that library?

Does it say where dracula moved his library to?

The monk's statement was too ambiguous for me as an answer to how dracula became a vampire.

It's too ambiguous for me, too. I understand how mythologies become intertwined and grafted to each other when there were originally no connections, though. Taking two prevailing but disparate folkloric elements and combining them gives new life and longevity to both. Vlad Tepes was a bad dude to begin with, so why not make him even worse by turning him into a vampire to boot?

Stoker took a hodgepodge of myths and legends and synthesized them; F.W. Murnau added his elements -- a particularly memorable one he created is: Dracula couldn't function in sunlight, that it could destroy him, while Stoker's Dracula got around in daylight quite well, though he reserved his most nefarious deeds for nighttime. Every writer and filmmaker adds something (a little or a lot) to the story. I'm not sure if the "three-strikes-you're-undead" trope is Kostova's own invention or not. Anyone know?

There were a lot of things Kostova left unexplained or ambiguous, but I'm uncertain if this was coyness or sloppiness. It's been three months since I read the book, so I don't remember many specifics, but I recall feeling frustrated with the many dead ends. One has already been mentioned: Who or what bit Helen the second time? What was the significance of the large spider Paul swatted off Helen's back when they were standing on the bridge in Budapest? It bounced with an audible plop onto the bridge railing -- very vivid writing there but apparently meaningless, as far as I can tell.

Several of you have mentioned "proto-Nazis" and "brownshirts" as the identity of the fellows in the grove performing the midnight ritual before the bonfire -- I think Georgescu called them "The Legion of the Archangel Michael" and he said the chant was "All for the Fatherland!" Well, they weren't "brownshirts" because their shirts were green. :-) Now, whether they were German stormtroopers doesn't make much sense either as the site of this particular ritual enactment was Roumania. What would German stormtroopers have been doing in that country in 1930 (being as the Nazis didn't come into power until 1933) and what is the historical backup, if this is plausible? It is known that certain individuals (Hitler included) had strong leanings toward the occult, but occultism was prevalent in many cultures during that era so why, specifically, is it assumed to be the Nazi variety -- other than Georgescu's translation of "Fatherland"? Btw, what gender do the Roumanians consider their homeland?

A detail that Kostova included about the Bulgarians fascinates me: the idiosyncrasy of nodding their heads up and down to mean "no" and shaking the head side to side to mean "yes," just the opposite of Western tradition? Admittedly, I haven't been everywhere in the world but the prevalence of up-and-down head wagging for the affirmative is striking, culture-wise -- it's sort of like right-handed versus left-handedness.

Geez, I didn't realize I would have this much to quiz everyone about? I remember thinking The Historian was a good-enough read but curiously flat. Maybe it's better than I thought at first.

I shall have to go back and re-read the Legion of the Archangel Michael section -- my impression that they were proto-Nazi's was a very strong one, and since I found them more frightening than good old Vlad, that was the impression that stuck.

It just occurred to me: if Kostova made up the three-bite thing, could she be trying to get around the paradox of Stoker's plot flaw, namely, that a vampire has to have fresh blood and every time a vampire bites a person they become undead (or just plain dead if an unbitten person does them the kindness of putting a stake through the heart)? Pretty soon, with mathematical logicality, there will be more undead than there are untainted folk. At least with Kostova's innovation (if that's what it is), there's a larger possibility of an untainted population, unless you carry that, too, to a logical extremity. It's a problem other writers of vampire tales have struggled with, including Richard Matheson in I Am Legend, where his protagonist finds himself the last unbitten person on earth.

Sheri, I have little doubt that Kostova wanted readers to recognize the Archangel Michael sect as a Nazi-like group, but I am questioning the validity -- even the plausibility -- of the assumption that it has to be Nazis, specifically.

I really dislike being brought up short by anachronisms or things that might be anachronisms. I was never wholly convinced by Kostova's depictions of the time-settings: 1930, 1954, and 1974 plus a few years. Oh, she states the times clearly enough and tries to add some identifiable larger time-framing issues, but they seem forced to me. A couple of outright anachronisms I suspect are: the description of the Bulgarian village in 1954 when Paul spots an incongruously conspicuous "white plastic pail"; then there's the time (in 1974) when the young unnamed narrator, gets her orange drink in foil pouches -- I never ran into those when I lived in Europe in the 1970s; did anyone else? Another thing that I think is a mistake is early in the book when the girl and her father are traveling south along the Dalmatian coast and they see the sea off to the left of the road. I'm probably being too picky, though, because if I can suspend disbelief with the very premise of the story, why should I think the historical and geographical features should be impeccable? Can you tell that I am hampered by taking things too literally? :-)

Re the mechanics of vampirism and the bites. Did anyone wonder what the purpose of the family tatoo was? Did it offer special protection or make one more vulnerable to Dracula and vampires in general or was it just merely symbolic? Did Helen's mother ever get bitten or pursued, for example? It doesn't indicate that, but we don't really know what happened to her in her later years (of if we do, I've forgotten that part).

I found myself wondering if, for example, because of her bloodline, Helen might have a certain resilience to bites of other vampires, but maybe not to Dracula's. Does that make any sense? I also thought because she was bitten twice, not three times, the gradual effect was the depression and wasting disease rather than becoming undead like some of the librarians who were - we assume - bitten three times.

I haven't traveled enough to be able to determine any anachronisms or geographical errors, but I think geographical errors are actually more common in literature than most people realize. It's exceedingly difficult to get it right, even for authors who have traveled to the locations that they are writing about (I'm thinking about Fitzgerald as an example of this and some of the geographical errors that are reportedly in The Great Gatsby).

Finally, I did ultimately like how some things in this book were explained while others remained a mystery.

So, yes, they were different from the "brown shirts." I think what misdirected me in the Kostova novel was Paul's gypsy guide's comment to the effect that whenever Jews are persecuted, Gypsies are next, then others.... As well, I recently read "Bury Me Standing", a history of the Gypsies and their persecution in Eastern Europe.

The region of eastern/southeastern Europe is absolutely fascinating ethnically and linguistically. That it has been a crossroad for ages is obvious by the juxtaposition of the diverse language groups: Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Italic, Romany (Indo-Aryan language of the Gypsies), Hellenic, Indo-Iranian (including Turkish)... I find all languages intriguing but none more than Hungarian. I love Kostova's description of Helen speaking Hungarian with her aunt Eva -- Kostova is right, Hungarian has such a distinctive meter to it. To switch from Roumanian (an Italic language) to Hungarian (Finno-Ugric) has to take a mental shifting of gears that, alas, I simply cannot manage smoothly. I tried to learn a bit of Hungarian from a dear friend, a journalist who graciously acted as my guide and interpreter when I stayed in Budapest (the Buda side). People who glide in and out of different languages must have different brain wiring than mine -- or they laid their neural pathways earlier. I envy Kostova's scholars in The Historian for their multilingualism, more than anything else.

Now, why did the Vlad/vampire combination capture so many readers' imaginations? I enjoy Stoker's Dracula every time I read it, but it really is a clunker in parts -- stilted in style, illogical, riddled with historical inaccuracies (Stoker did surprisingly well with geographies), having a plot that is so flawed it's a wonder that it holds together at all, and just plain hokey -- yet, it's captivating at the same time.

Or was it the film with Bela Lugosi that actually did the trick by imprinting so many folk who would not have read the book if they hadn't seen the film? And what an industry this gruesome tale has spawned: books, films, television shows, Halloween costumes! Kostova chose a subject guaranteed to provoke interest, but, I think, she did quite well attempting a different take on a worn subject. Surely, there will be a film to follow, as someone mentioned above.

I read through this thread trying to find where I thought someone asked about why the focus was shifted to the French Pyrenees, but I can't find it -- maybe I read it somewhere else -- but, if I've overlooked it, forgive me for not attributing. That puzzled me, too. The only thing I can think of is the recent renewed interest in the Cathar and Albigensian heresies and that region of France where they were fomented -- The Da Vinci Code was partially inspired by them. And I'm guessing that book's popularity has made the locale a new hotbed of mystery -- another enigma inside an enigma. Or is there another connection that I'm just not aware of?

As for the Vampiric connection to Roumanian tradition, I wonder if we were to thoroughly research ancient Gypsy folk tradition, belief, etc. if we might come up with a connection, which might take it eventually all the way back to India....

Just a thought.

Someone e-mailed me an opinion of the young narrator in The Historian, about whether she was even necessary. I just accepted her, I suppose, but on reflection I see her as a tie between the readers of the present (2005 and hereafter) and events that modern readers perhaps need a liaison for. Also, the narrator herself ages to the present (or to 2008, at least), so that indicates to me the neverending threat of vampires. What do you all think?

In thinking about Dracula, I was reminded of seeing one of the scary movies with a cousin in our early teens. The theater gave out little paper folders of coming attractions, and when we got up to leave we found that she had shredded hers into tiny pieces during the show without even knowing it.

A few thoughts: I've read bios on the real Vlad Dracul and he was, although bloodthirsty, a national hero. He single-handedly stopped the Turks from advancing by impaling and displaying their bodies as a warning.

In the end of The Historian, Dracula was shot with a single silver bullet - just one. But we don't know that it really even hit him. Could an immortal evil man who has been strengthening himself for 500 years be killed by a single bullet? What if it just grazed him? Or missed his heart? They left him for "dead" but never really got close enough to double-check. They made sure Rossi was dead via a stake through the heart. Why then, didn't they make sure with Dracula?

In my opinion, the Barley/daughter relationship was over when, in the hotel room, he moved away from her and said, "Ah, you're just a kid." At that point, he emotionally removed himself from the future of the story.

The dragon tattoo was a signal, I think. A way of identifying family members. Maybe, just speculation, those with a dragon tattoo are more suseptable to Dracula's bites. It is a way of ensuring the lineage continues.

The book at the end, presented to the daughter in Philly was the proof that Dracula was not defeated by three scholars. The saga continues... not because of a sequel, in my opinion, but because the daughter, whose middle name is Helen, but I don't recall the first name, is a direct decendent of Dracula. They are linked and her life will repeat the pattern.

PAM

I read it for another book club as well and was in the minority there for liking the book. Most of our readers were disappointed by the hype, felt the ending and Dracula's revelation at the end was sort of ho hum, and there were too many plot holes. I think what really killed it for some readers, though, was some of the long, drawn out research, such as the chapter relating the monk's documents. I really enjoyed it, though, and liked it for the history and the questions that it raised. The fact that it left certain matters unresolved at the end didn't bother me the way it did some members of my book club.

The part about the monestary in Spain was actually one of the highlights for me. I loved the way religion was woven into the plot. Fascinating that she chose a church crypt for his hide-away yet crucifixes stopped him.

And yes, I admit that for a split-second I thought, "Hmmm, immortality and all of those books and all I have to do is be a vampire?"

Did anyone see the special on A&E last night about vampires and vampire legend? It was rather interesting until they went Hollywood and "Anne Rice-d" the rest of the program. I turned it off at that point.

PAM

As an aside, yesterday I was delighted to find this in pristine condition at a garage sale. Easy to part with those two dollars!

I wanna know if Turgut Bora really exists, and if there is a text written for Shakespeare called The king of Tashkani... can someone answere me, please?

To start off, allow me to speculate on some open issues...

"Was Dracula actually killed?" That's a toughy. The last actual chapter sure gave that impression. Yet based on the epilogue, someone is still distributing the enigmatic dragon books. As a wag on another Web site put it, Dracula's own "Book of the Month Club" is still alive and well. My feeling is that, though Dracula showed all the signs of dying in the crypt, crumbling to dust in the process, the author preferred to leave the question open using the epilogue. She didn't want to be the one to put an end to the creative possibilities the Dracula character embodies by killing him off.

"Why Did Dracula deliver these books to the living and not bite them three times?" My guess is that anyone turned into a vampire via being bitten three times becomes essentially a slave to Dracula, but also becomes a bit of a zombie in the process. For this job of cataloguer of his library, Dracula wanted someone who was not only highly intelligent but also still had all their faculties intact.

"The librarian obviously wanted to find the tomb. Why didn’t Dracula want him to find himself?" This is one my biggest questions, I haven't a clue. Maybe he turned out not to be the good choice Drac had originally thought, and Dracula was avoiding him! Anyone have other ideas?

"Why garlic, silver pistols and crucifixes?" Most descriptions of Eastern European vampire legends mention garlic and crucifixes as items that are useful in warding off vampires. On the other hand, I had thought silver bullets (not silver pistols) were the stuff of werewolf movies.

"Does he go back to kill Helen after she dies a natural death? Why, if she had only been bitten twice? Can a dead person be bitten a third time?" My feeling was that Paul simply didn't want to take any chances that Helen would somehow wind up among the undead. There's no guarantee that the stuff we've learned from legends and movies are facts set in stone. As to the idea of a dead person being bitten by a vampire, not according to the legends, anyway. Once a person is truly dead (whatever that means), there's no bringing them back.

"We are never told the daughter's name, or their surname - I wonder if there was a reason for this?" In an interview I read somewhere (found using a Google search), Kostova stated that "I left her unnamed as a literary experiment. I wanted to see if I could give her a full personality without the handle of a name."

"As for the name of Helen's mother: was it not "Getzi"? (I thought one narrator said that Vlad's line had almost died out and intermarried with Hungarians by that name). I assumed Helen's last name was Rossi. (?)" Helen's mother's last name was Getzi, I believe, but I don't think her first name was ever mentioned. Helen took on the last name Rossi when she learned who were father was; it apparently was not her legal name.

This is getting rather long-winded, so I'll continue my speculations in a new message.

"What did you make of Vlad telling the head Monk that there was this monastery in France which had learned to "outwit death by secret means?" I'm fairly sure he was referring to the monastery at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrenees-Orientales, and the legend told by the monk (in Chapter 76) about the early abbot who had been the "recipient of a curse in death," and who "rose from his coffin to do harm to the monks." This would have occurred not long after the year 1000. It's never explained why or how the vampire tradition began at that place at that time, but I think that was what Dracula was referring to.

"Does it say where dracula moved his library to?" Not that I remember; however, he did seem to have long-term connections with the monastery at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrenees-Orientales, so I'm guessing he was planning to move there.

Regarding the "three bites and you're undead" business, I had heard of this part of the vampire mythos years ago, so it certainly wasn't original with Kostova. I've been looking for any information on this in my references dealing with actual folk tales, and can't find a thing. It might have been something invented by Hollywood in the early years of vampire movies.

I can't believe how long these messages have become; I guess this is the sort of book that inspires a lot of speculation and analysis. I hope you'll find my contributions useful!

--Larry

--Larry

I was glad it was not trying to be a 'horror' one since it was enjoyable reading about the libraries, etc. Too bad you can not just go and get access to those places with such ease as someone already mentioned.

About the daughter and that guy, I thought it kind of mirrored her mother being on her own, though in love. I wasn't sure if she was now tatooed or would have her own daughter (if she has one) get one.

I dont really think of Vlad as 'evil' exactly though he was cruel. I think it is hard for us (or at least for me who has never experienced war and the worst thing being some fruit is out of season...) to imagine that time.

I was a bit confused about 'the order of the dracul' being some western european thing, I think that is what it said. I will have to look it up again. I had thought it was some ancient custom of theirs since I thought the superstitions had been around a long time. Does anyone know about that?

About those books, I wasn't sure if it was "dracula fan's" wanting to get some of his power from him and somehow guessing/knowing these people would be a key to it. I know, that idea is very fuzzy but it was clearer after I had finished it... I dont know, I do believe things happen for a reason and some things are meant to happen, etc. so it isn't that big a stretch to picture there are people getting these weird books every so often. I think that is why the one librarian was following them since I dont think Dracula wanted the guy around much or wanted him to do his 'purpose' and not bug him for more 'glory' or whatever you want to call it.

I thought the girls father finding the village with Draculas heir was a bit contrived but if you can 'go with' them getting the books for a purpose then I guess this works too...

That scene with the "nazi wannabes" was scary! Imagine how bad they would have to be if you are more afraid of them then the undead...

Larry, I will need to re-read parts of the book since that is an interesting point about the one French monastery.

I hope this thread is still going since I hope to refresh my memory about the book and come back and post some more.

Maria

Also, this is my biggest contention with the book and all of its 'coincidences' - which I am fine with . . . it was a supernatural subject so if we decide to immerse ourselves in the book and believe these things, the large number of such coincidences are easily reconcilable. Anyhow, I think the author overlooked the connection between Helen's dragon (on her shoulder), and the Crescent Guard. Shouldn't Paul and Helen at least have shared some mutual concern about this upon discovering that Turgut et al would kill Dracula and his decendents. It may be a stretch that they could find her true identity, but I felt the topic should have at least been broached. Anyone concur?

and by the way, the weird neo nazi group found in the woods, was spoted by Barth Rossi and Georgescu not by Paul!!!!! before the first ran in to Helen's mom and even before he went to Greece and lost his memory. By the way, meeting Dracula brought back Barth's memory, as he recognized Helen's moms face when he saw her!

Un libro Excelente.......... y el capitulo 59 no es tan malo, yo lo lei 2 veces, es muy interesante en cuanto a la cronica misma de Zacarias, pero igual es "is one more needle stich in the process of getting all the clues"

BTW roxanna, bienvenido! (welcome!)

I just finished The Historian so I am bringing this back. I loved it! I guess the biggest question is, "Is Dracula still alive?" I think no, that someone has taken his place. It seems like evil always has a "second in command" and that is who is redistributing the books. The librarian gets away in the end and he was desperate to find Dracula and I think he is the second. I think Paul went to back make sure Helen wasn't "undead". I think it was absolutely Dracula who bit Helen the second time. Dracula had lost Barth as his personal librarian and needed a new one. I agree he preferred to have his librarians willing accomplices because they were sharper than if they were completely converted.

Anyway, I will be passing this book along, I already have my two daughters frothing at the bit to read it. I guess they'll have to draw straws.

In the minus parts, I think she did not do the greatest job in giving the characters their own voices - especially through the letters. They all sound as written by the same person.

Interesting how she shows that horrible horrible things in history really did happen and still affect us today ex: Paul killed by a land mine from an old war)

Also interesting is the Christian v. Islam thing, like the Order of the Dragon (of which Vlad was part of), especially since the order seemed to be more political than purely religious. So much in common with our conflicts today.

I read up on the Jannisaries and interesting that the first ones where non-Muslims, like Christian Muslims and POWs that were exempted from military service. They ended up having such an important part in the Muslim world, almost like the Christian Crusaders.

See link below to see birthplace city of Vlad Tepes - every July there is a huge midieval fest there.

I just finished the book. I didn't like it, but want to post my critique on it. I would have posted my musings on that other thread, but since I cant find it... And I dont want to turn your post in the opposite direction from which it was inteded by adding my negative comments to it.
So, would you mind if I posted it here? or would you rather I just start another post of my thoughts on it? Thank you! :-D
CMK

bumblebeez, I did not like "Suite Francaise" either when I first tried to read it. I had to read another of her novels first to get into her style. Then, I went back and was able to finish it.

Well, I heard so much good things about this book from you guys that I wanted to read it too. I went into this book not having any expectations for it, like I do with all books. I found myself disliking this book from nearly the first chapter, but I plodded on, figuring it got better later on. There was a great deal that annoyed my about this book, and soon even the little things started to bother me too.

But let me start with the praises. First I thought the authors idea for whole theme very interesting, tring to combine historical facts about Vlad with the legend of Dracula. I thought it very ambitous, but somehow it all failed for me.
I also like Kostova's writing, to a certain extent, and also her complexities in the book. And I too liked the romance between Helen and Paul. But thats where the liking ends im afraid.

Now for my dislikes (prepare for a lot!).
The first is the plot itself. There was so much about it that I felt just didnt connect. I felt it was very unsound, and that the author was trying to distract us from seeing it thru her writing and the complexities.

The dragon books. Why are these even neccisary? There was only one part that explaned this--Dracula wanted to intice Historians to see how close they would come to finding him (so he can make them the cataloger of his library). So if he WANTED them to try to find him why did he try to 'warn them away' by killing their friends etc.? Is Dracula so board that he has to play these perverted practical jokes? Lol, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just hold an interview for an eternal cataloger?
Everyone seems really superstitious about the Dragon book. How can they be so freaked out at simply finding a peculiar looking book? And why in the world would a HISTORIAN be scared at the mere mention of Dracula? And Paul seems like an milksop in comparison to the Amazonian Helen.

Another major thing for me was the "oh, its just a strange coincidence" thing. They always just happen to meet another dragon-book holder, who just happens to have some information, which just happens to lead them in the right direction WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCES!

I think I must have been the only one who didn't like the historical and traveling parts. They (Paul and Un-named Daughter and also Paul and Helen) bounce around from place to place so frequently that you dont know where you are. And then the descriptions of the places they go seem more like its out of a vacation brochure. But somehow it doesn't matter, because the only thing they really do in those countries is spend their time inside a library, a cafe, or their hotel. They only do a litte bit of sightseeing.
The historical parts covered too broad a spectrum. We were led down so many dead ends... I also thought the history (though I dearly love all sorts of Historical subjects) dry and text-book like. All that history fizzled out the few dramatic parts.

Everything was repetitious too. Every other scene is set in a library, each housing its own genuine vampire! Everything in the book felt monochromatic, the speech, the tone, and even the characters. Did you ever notice how much the characters are alike? I know I wouldnt have recognized Turgut from Rossi from Stoichev. The author seems to use the same language for all of them. And am I the only one who noticed every forigner asked "how do you say" when speaking in English? Turgut used it often, Soichev used it, and even Helen at times!
Then Paul 'recognizes' every one too much. The painting of Dracula- he notices Helen looks a lot like him. He notes that Ranov (the Bulgarian Man of the People) looks familiar. Then the worst was when he 'recognizes' Turgut. How could he recognize him as something diffrent? Was 'I Am A Member of the Crecent Gaurd' plastered on Turgut's forehead? Helen (who is not a Historain but seems to know ever historic event since the dawn of time) didn't even know about the Crecent Gaurd.

Then I disliked Dracula. He seemed like a real whimpish vampire, the kind you could kill more easily with mouse traps and flypaper than wooden stakes and silver bullets. And why cant he just take care of his own library? It wouldn't take that long to catalog it, especially for someone that lives for eternity. But if I were a Historian id positivly JUMP at the chance to get a hand on all of those rare books and even learn historcal mysteries from from someone who has whitnessed them first hand (Dracula)!

And that bit with the spider on Helen's back really came out of the blue. I laughed really hard at that one. So add a can of Raid to the lists of vampire-pest control.

Sorry this is such a whine-fest. I couldn't wait to get this book over with. I can't see what you guys LIKE about it, lol. But to each is own! Glad someone liked this monster of a book.
;-)
CMK

Well...wrong! I don't remember all the details anymore, but certain parts I thought were just ridiculous. And I agree with Christin on Dracula's motives with the library. The dude has all eternity....he's going to go to all the trouble and bother for a frickin LIBRARIAN??!! Good grief!
Not my cuppa, that's for sure:-)

Kelly

I'd like to re-read The Historian but I'd have to be in the right mood to do so. Maybe around Halloween.

I was wondering if anyone knew where in the novel the narrator sees her mother, Helen, before she actually meets her at the end. In Chapter 79, the narrator says "I saw you", and I wanted to go back and see where.

Thanks!!!

I am soooo glad I re-read this novel. It is a real tour de force, and less confusing the second time. I picked up quite a few more details that had gone over my head the first reading. I still think the ending is amazing, as well as the preface....

One thing that is really bothering me is the identity of the man in the train. The one that asks the narrator where is your father? I can't recall now if she heard him speak or if he established some kind of psychic connection with her. Could it possibly have been Dracula or is it more likely that it was one of his minions? Was this ever cleared up?

As far as the ending (epilogue), I thought it was one of the truly chilling scenes in the novel.

Did you buy/download the unabridged audio? I have been looking for it for years and only very recently found out they actually have an unabridged version available.
I'm glad you loved the book too! I hope they don't bastardize the movie but they probably will.

Hugh James' wife's death is briefly described when he tells Paul his story....somewhere.
That sounds interesting, woodnymph! I need something great to read.