The books that counted- The Historian
Feb. 4th, 2016 05:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scripsiWhen I read The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova the first time it felt like a book written specifically for me. I love long, slow-moving books. I love historical mysteries. I love vampires. I love multiple time-lines. I love history. And though I can’t say that this particular book had an unusual impact on me, it is representative for a few interest that has followed me for a long time.
When I was around eleven, Swedish television aired a documentary called Looking for Dracula, which partly was about vampires as mythological beings, Bram Stoker and Dracula, vampire movies- and the real Dracula, Vlad Tepes. It was narrated by Christopher Lee who also played both Dracula the vampire, and Dracula the real man (and looking scarily like him).
You can see the full documentary here:
In me it sparked an interest in vampires which never really has disappeared, despite the current inflation of vampires in media. And the trend of making vampires into romantic heroes- I prefer my vampires bad. In the early 80’s it was a lot more difficult to find vampires to watch (relying on the two TV channels Sweden had then, and no cable and no VCR) or books. Dracula and Carmilla had to be borrowed from another library. But my library had the book the documentary had sprung from; In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires by Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally. I actually think this was the first book which made a connection between myth and man and I found it fascinating then and fascinating now.
I suppose it’s pretty well know now, but in case you have missed it; Vlad Tepes, was a Wallachian prince in the late 15th century. He spent most of his time fighting against the Ottomans and he wasn’t nice at all, as the nickname The Impaler indicates. It’s not a long stretch to imagine that a man who clearly had a very cruel sadistic streak, and acted upon it, could become a vampire after death. Nowadays he seems to have been converted into a Tragic Hero in media, there are both movies and books that downplays his nastier sides and highlight his intelligence, cultural interests and the possibility of Grand Romance.
The Historian play with the idea of Dracula and Dracula being the same person and though it acknowledged his better sides, there is no whitewashing done. Dracula is the villain of the book and is as evil as any self-respecting vampire. The book starts with a nameless narrator, now in her 50’s relating things that happened to her as a teenager in the early 1970’s. She is motherless and her father Paul is a diplomat and they are living in Amsterdam. During a number of travels all over Europe he starts to tell her a story of how he, as a history student in USA 20 years earlier i given a mysterious book with a strange picture of a dragon and the word “Drakulya” in, something which makes him start to look into the history of Vlad Tepes. Shortly after his tutor, Rossi, who received a similar book as a young man, disappears. Paul and a young Romanian woman who claims to be Rossi’s daughter travels to Europe to search for Rossi. They also slowly realise that Dracula is real and that he is playing his own game throughout history. And eventually they learn what happened to Rossi in the 1930’s and his own experiences with the undead. At one point the narrator’s father disappears and the rest of his story it told in a series of letters she reads as she is searching for her.
Re-reading it I find it isn’t as perfect as I remembered it. I don’t need to have everything explained to me, but Dracula's motivations are a bit fussy. It’s clear he presents the dragon books to scholars he deem of special value, but as soon they start to research him, they are violently warned off. Why? There are also several instances where people with the right skills show up exactly when the hero's need them. I mean once, ok, but twice, or trice? That is making things a bit too easy for you. I also feel that the final confrontation with Dracula is a bit of an anti-climax. after all the tension that have been built, things are over a bit too quickly. But over all I still love this book and it was great fun to re-read it. Now I think I will re-read In Search of Dracula.
When I was around eleven, Swedish television aired a documentary called Looking for Dracula, which partly was about vampires as mythological beings, Bram Stoker and Dracula, vampire movies- and the real Dracula, Vlad Tepes. It was narrated by Christopher Lee who also played both Dracula the vampire, and Dracula the real man (and looking scarily like him).
You can see the full documentary here:
In me it sparked an interest in vampires which never really has disappeared, despite the current inflation of vampires in media. And the trend of making vampires into romantic heroes- I prefer my vampires bad. In the early 80’s it was a lot more difficult to find vampires to watch (relying on the two TV channels Sweden had then, and no cable and no VCR) or books. Dracula and Carmilla had to be borrowed from another library. But my library had the book the documentary had sprung from; In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires by Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally. I actually think this was the first book which made a connection between myth and man and I found it fascinating then and fascinating now.
I suppose it’s pretty well know now, but in case you have missed it; Vlad Tepes, was a Wallachian prince in the late 15th century. He spent most of his time fighting against the Ottomans and he wasn’t nice at all, as the nickname The Impaler indicates. It’s not a long stretch to imagine that a man who clearly had a very cruel sadistic streak, and acted upon it, could become a vampire after death. Nowadays he seems to have been converted into a Tragic Hero in media, there are both movies and books that downplays his nastier sides and highlight his intelligence, cultural interests and the possibility of Grand Romance.
The Historian play with the idea of Dracula and Dracula being the same person and though it acknowledged his better sides, there is no whitewashing done. Dracula is the villain of the book and is as evil as any self-respecting vampire. The book starts with a nameless narrator, now in her 50’s relating things that happened to her as a teenager in the early 1970’s. She is motherless and her father Paul is a diplomat and they are living in Amsterdam. During a number of travels all over Europe he starts to tell her a story of how he, as a history student in USA 20 years earlier i given a mysterious book with a strange picture of a dragon and the word “Drakulya” in, something which makes him start to look into the history of Vlad Tepes. Shortly after his tutor, Rossi, who received a similar book as a young man, disappears. Paul and a young Romanian woman who claims to be Rossi’s daughter travels to Europe to search for Rossi. They also slowly realise that Dracula is real and that he is playing his own game throughout history. And eventually they learn what happened to Rossi in the 1930’s and his own experiences with the undead. At one point the narrator’s father disappears and the rest of his story it told in a series of letters she reads as she is searching for her.
Re-reading it I find it isn’t as perfect as I remembered it. I don’t need to have everything explained to me, but Dracula's motivations are a bit fussy. It’s clear he presents the dragon books to scholars he deem of special value, but as soon they start to research him, they are violently warned off. Why? There are also several instances where people with the right skills show up exactly when the hero's need them. I mean once, ok, but twice, or trice? That is making things a bit too easy for you. I also feel that the final confrontation with Dracula is a bit of an anti-climax. after all the tension that have been built, things are over a bit too quickly. But over all I still love this book and it was great fun to re-read it. Now I think I will re-read In Search of Dracula.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 04:45 pm (UTC)I read Bram Stoker's Dracula a few years ago. It surprised me, although I can't articulate why. I'm glad I did though.
Did you see Buffy ' Dracula episode?
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 04:59 pm (UTC)I did! love Buffy and that is one of my favourite episodes in that season. And Rudolf Martin went on playing Vlad Tepes in Dark Prince- The True Story of Dracula (only not so true). I suspect he got the role partly because of Buffy. :)
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 07:16 pm (UTC)*HUGS*
no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 10:29 pm (UTC)Gabrielle
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-04 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 03:06 pm (UTC)