Dracula would be spinning in his grave, but he's not there.

Given my penchant for vampire literature, I don't know how I continued ignorant of this for so long. I rather wish I had, though, for it would have saved me the righteous indignation I feel out of respect for Bram Stoker and his classic work Dracula.

Dacre Stoker, the great grandnephew of Bram Stoker, and Ian Holt (a self-desrcibed vampire fanboy, apparently, who became obsessed with the fanged creatures via Coppola's 1992 film) have presumed to write an official sequel to Dracula.

Now, I certainly don't mind sequels to classic works. It can be entertaining to read them and I'm always amused to think of them as glorified and publishing world-condoned pieces of fanfiction. I've read a few in my time and I will happily read a few more.

But don't call these works official sequels. They were not written by the original author. They were not constructed from notes and partially-finished drafts hidden in an old coffee can on a high shelf. They're interpretive fancy, plain and simple, based in other minds and imaginations than the original.

Hence my indignation over these literary upstarts, 112 years after the fact, penning an official sequel to the granddaddy of all vampire novels.

An official sequel? Really? Fie upon that!

...of course, I'll read it anyway.

P.S. Okay, apparently the publisher claims that the book is based on notes and plot threads excised from Stoker's original novel. Also, they describe Ian Holt as a Dracula historian. When I have a few moments, I'll try to corroborate both of these claims... but I still think that calling this an official sequel is preposterous.

P.P.S. Fine. Maybe Ian Holt has some Dracula research chops (ha). That doesn't make him or Dacre reincarnations of the long-dead Bram. Sequel claim = still preposterous.