"The Historian" has gripping sections, some beautiful prose, and some original, and intelligent ideas. Especially about the nature of history, research, and how both inform our modern lives. However, after finishing the text I am not blown away. After investing the time to read the 600+ page novel I feel slighted if the text does not leave me with something more than a "I'm finished with that one" feeling.
The first 300 or so pages of this text are exciting and well written, and then the text slows down slower than the pilgrimages of the medieval monks that it is describing. I don't know where Ms. Kostova's editors were, but they dropped the ball on that one. If you like historical texts, thriller genres, and have an interest in the legend of Dracula then the text is worth the time. However, if you are not ardent about all three then I believe you will not enjoy this novel. I know many people who hated this text and did not finish it. I know only one person, a PhD in History, who loved it. I would count myself as ambivalent. I wish I wasn't.

3.5 stars if possible. I loved the story itself. Loved the gothic, atmospheric feel of the book. Loved the historical telling of Vlad The Impaler. Loved reading about the different locations (especially Istanbul where I was lucky enough to visit once). I would have rated it 1/2 star higher (to make it 4) but I felt it got long winded in parts and seemed to get repetitive as well. I was also a bit creeped out at times though which usually doesn't happen to me.

3.5/5.
Finishing this book kind of felt like finishing a marathon (not that I’d know what finishing a marathon actually feels like haha). I did enjoy this book overall, but reading it sometimes felt like chore (which it kind of was, because I read it for class).
Only very few books actually need to be over 800 pages long and this definitely wasn‘t that book. It was very well written, but too descriptive at some points and a couple of turns and twists the story took could've honestly just been cut entirely. I read that Kostova wanted to write a "serious novel" akin to the (also often overly long) Victorian novels, but it felt too laboured in this case.
Overall, The Historian is less of a traditional supernatural vampire story, but rather focuses on how evil (of the supernatural and human kind) pervades history and becomes "immortal" in some cases. It's a book for history nerds (which I wouldn't necessarily consider myself to be) and lovers of old books and libraries (which I definitely consider myself to be). In fact, every character in this book (including the ominous "Vlad the Impaler" himself) is obsessed with books, manuscripts, archives, libraries and all sorts of recordings of history. The novel plays with multiple narrational perspectives, blurs different narrative timelines and narrative techniques together, telling the story partly through letters and descriptions of manuscripts. It very much reads like a quest story that takes the characters and the reader to various East European cities and into countless archives and libraries, making it a very immersive read.
If you're interested in a new and original view on the legend of Dracula or in a book devoted to interesting ideas on historiography and the process of "writing and rewriting" history (and you're in the mood for a rather lengthy read!), then I'd say give this a shot!

The Historian

By Elizabeth Kostova


Kostova received two million dollars for this debut novel, an almost unheard of sum for an unknown writer, but I’m sure it went a long way in reimbursing her expenses for the research that would have been required to write The Historian. Make no mistake, this is a lush and beautiful book, each passage is fleshed out in detail reminiscent of the grand medieval cathedrals and libraries in which it takes place. The reader is drawn into the past quickly and presented with the vast knowledge Ms. Kostova has of the Ottoman Empire, Eastern European folklore, and the legend of Dracula.

At it’s heart, The Historian, is the story of a young man led to believe his missing professor has been whisked away by the evil Vlad Tpesch, Dracula. Paul xxxx is drawn into a world where history and myth walk hand in hand. He receives a mysterious book, blank save for the chilling emblem of a dragon at the very center. When he shows this book to his mentor, Professor Rossi, it sets into motion a chain of events that lead him from his university in London, to Constantinople, Romania, Bulgaria and eventually the Transylvania province of Walachia. Along the way he meets a mysterious Romanian woman also searching for Rossi, a noble Turkish Scholar, various priests and numerous villains. His steps are dogged by bureaucrats, as well as the undead, making this a long and complicated search not only for Rossi but for Dracula as well.

Most vampire tales rely on cloaked figures, fangs gleaming, jumping out of dark alleys or taking the shape of a giant bat to prey on their innocent victims. The Historian has none of this melodramatic buildup. It plods along, gathering information about the real Walachian Prince, taunting not only our hero and his female companion but the reader with some menace and a few appearance of an undead librarian but for the most part the real blood sucking is minimal. I’m a history buff so the background information and the search for Dracula is something I find interesting. It has the feel of a research paper, but an intriguing research paper. However, I’m also a fan of vampire stories, so the slow methodical trudge and lack of actual sightings of the fiend are something I find irksome. It drags in too many places, and goes off on historical tangents that a scary story really shouldn’t. I can’t decide it the historical aspects and the amazing depth they provide help or hinder this book. It just seems to me that she could have tightened the whole thing up and gotten to the heart of the matter and the stake through its heart, sooner.

I found The Historian to be rich and luxurious - kind of like a mink coat, unfortunately the pacing and unrelenting narrative make it about as useful as a mink coat in Florida. Still, I wouldn’t mind reading the next novel Ms. Kostova writes, maybe a biography of one of the historical characters in this book because she has a wonderful ability to bring her characters to life. My only hope is that Ms. Kostova spent her two million dollar advance wisely, hopefully not on a mink coat.

A plodding, contrived, poorly written mess of a book about three generations of historians researching the Dracula legend. It spans centuries, countries and strains all credulity.

The multi-narrative structure is ambitious (and, of course, is a nod to Stoker's classic novel), but Kostova doesn't pull it off. All her characters - unless they have an obvious accent - sound alike and there's far too much exposition and repetition.

The final quarter (it's a looong book, about as long as Vlad's life) is suspenseful and atmospheric, and obviously she's done a lot of research into how historians gather facts.

But if you'll pardon the pun, boy does this book suck.

I liked it. I thought reading the letters was an interesting way to tell the story. I usually like a lot more action in my books, but somehow I didn't mind with this one. It unfolded slowly, but still managed to stay interesting.

If this book was written as strictly nonfiction, I would have given it 5 stars because the research into the spellbinding topic of Vlad the Impaler, aka Dracula, was extremely extensive! However, it is fictional, and although the overall story was deliciously creepy, with a captivating ending, and several characters keeping me on my toes, omitting some of the excessive investigations and details would have cut down several pages/chapters in this novel and helped me be less confused as to where the plot was taking place (at times) as well as trying to remember and keep some of the characters straight, without losing the general gist of the story.
But, overall, a "good read" and "audio-listen" for fans of Dracula!

Upon rereading this, I took a star away, as for me this truly warrants a one star review. The Historian is a long winded slog that is a terrible mystery/vampire novel, a decent travelogue of 1970s Eastern Europe, and borrows the method of Dracula without nearing any of that book's execution. I'm into long winded tales, I'm into books set in the past, I'm into books about books, and characters as scholars or playing at scholars: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is one of my all time favorite books, and if I'm after a "smart" guilty pleasure I'll still enjoy picking up The Club Dumas. So this should totally be in my wheelhouse, but it was honestly even more of a chore the second time around.

First the good: Kostova did a lot of research and travel to the places in her novel and it shows. The sense of place as we hop round Europe is quite good, especially with regard to Istanbul, Budapest, and Romania. Kostova has nice attention to detail for the travelogue oriented parts, and here, that detail is necessary, lends itself to establishing atmosphere and scene, and is altogether welcome and accomplished.

That's all I've got for the good. Now for the frustrating, infuriating, weak and downright dull parts.

First problem: the first narrator is entirely pointless. She has no personality to speak of, and has very little page time. Her entire reason for being is to ask her father questions, and then read from his series of letters. She has a few moments of action near the end but she herself does nothing in those moments. You care nothing about her, indeed you almost forget she exists, how little she is seen or heard versus the letters/conversations of her father, and because Kostova pretty much has one voice for all of the characters, she is entirely unmemorable.

This leads to another two part downfall of the book: switching between multiple pasts with little payoff, and poorly using an epistolary format throughout. Because the first narrator is more or less pointless, the entire timeline of her past (because she is writing from the present to describe her past encounter that mostly describes her father's past) means very little to the reader. The portion that we care to read is Paul's past, his research and journeys and trials and tribulations shared with Helen. Paul and especially Helen are far more compelling characters. The third last we get is Rossi's, which informs Paul and Helen in their past as they piece together clues and facts. I could deal with this, but the problem is we are supposed to be gathering all this through letters that Paul has provided his nameless daughter. But the long winded prose and sentences, the extra details in what should be moments of action or fear don't fit at all with letter writing. Kostova cannot use the epistolary format authentically, and doesn't seem to care that the reader will find the set up unbelievable. And because how Paul writes letters sounds like how the narrator talks (and sounds like Rossi's letters as well), I found it that much harder to swallow, especially after reading Stoker's take so recently and how well he was able to pull it off, and be true to character voices AND to making a letter sound like a letter.

If Kostova had excised the unnecessary first narrator, and removed the epistolary format, and centered the narrative around Paul and Helen with the flashbacks/letters of Rossi, the book probably would have been two stars for me. But it would still only go up a star because...

DRACULA IS BARELY IN IT AND HIS ROLE AND MOTIVATIONS ARE ASININE.

It is not good that the research and scholarship of Dracula is far more interesting than the character itself once he finally arrives. And what good is it to give us such rich history of Vlad Tepes/Vlad Dracul, the Order of the Dragon and the secret knights of the Sultan opposed to him for all eternity, his cults, folklore, songs, if it comes to naught in creating a worthwhile, significant character when he appears in the flesh on the page? The idea of (and fear and pursuit of) Dracula is far better than Dracula himself, which is entirely a let down and very deflating. And what is Dracula's master plan? What is his motivation behind leaving creepy little books as calling cards and having his fiendish flunkies kill cats and third tier side characters? Why have these historians been toiling and pursuing him?  Because he needs an expert librarian to catalogue his extensive, ancient library. That's it. DRACULA WANTS A PERSONAL LIBRARIAN (Oh and take over the world of course, but we're told little about that.)  And I thought Stoker's Dracula was absent, but at least he built the horror and tension needed to believe in his cruelty and malice. Here we are told in letters and research about young Vlad Dracul's impaling oriented exploits, but its all undone by the dry, overstuffed language of the discoveries and the absence of any impaler like activities in the main narrative (Paul's daughter and Paul's). Why even be Vlad the Impaler if he never impales anyone??? Kostova's Dracula is entirely neutered when he appears on page, and ultimately undoes any charm or creativity about the historical research into the background of Dracula.

If I felt the climax of Stoker's Dracula was a bit weak, the climax to The Historian for all intents and purposes does not exist, that's how bad / short / stupid / unsatisfying it was for me. Not to be overly crude, but if I was going to suffer through all Kostova's masturbatory prose and poor execution (with a side of mice travelogue), I was expecting one hell of a climax at the end, some reason for reading this. But there's no pay off, there's no there there. Fortunately I will never need to read this book again: it's two readings too many as it is.

‘Perhaps it was the contagion of my fathers’s letters, but everything looked suspicious to me now. It was as if we were being followed by eyes I could not see.’

If you liked the Dan Brown ‘Da Vinci code’ series, Dracula and vampires, train rides across Europe, descriptions through stories, letters and real life, 15th and 16th century history, action and romance…this is for you.

Reading the book with the intertwined stories and characters telling them certainly keeps you on your toes. But it is well worth it.


Ps I will never look at Librarians in the same way again

This has got to be one of the most disappointing books I've read in a long time. Although the descriptions of the various eastern European cities are often pretty and atmospheric, my frustration with this book won't let me mark it above one star.

It starts out well; very interesting and suspenseful for about the first 100 pages or so. But as you read it, the book just gets more and more ridiculous. It's about 600 900(!) pages long (which is way, way too long) and I urge anyone reading this book to just put it down or read one of the one-star spoiler reviews on Amazon and be done with it. Or better yet, ignore the book entirely.

What bothered me most? I'll try to make a list of my top issues:

-- Coincidences. *Everything* in this book happens by some remarkable coincidences. One here or there would be fine, even interesting, but it's as if the author decided 'here's how the plot should go', and couldn't be bothered to come up with realistic reasons for characters to do things and just wanted to move them from one point to another. One of the characters even ends up with amnesia. Amnesia! Like from a bad soap opera! I mean, are you kidding? So stuff just happens. For no reason. Which leads me to...

-- Stuff just happens. For no reason. Such as characters getting together romantically, well, just because. No build up, no logic, they just do because I guess they're both there and they have nothing better to do. Which leads me to...

-- The characters themselves. Completely non-existent. One reviewer on amazon said that if you take any random section of dialogue from the book, it is impossible to tell which character it came from. So true! The author is completely incapable of creating realistic, breathing characters that are different from each other. Instead they all talk the same, they all have the same reactions, the same motives, hook up randomly in the same way, etc. There is *nothing* believable about these people. And for some reason, they all write unbelievably detailed letters. Which leads me to...

-- Unbelievably detailed letters! Now I have read a number of great books that use the format of letter writing to convey the plot. But this? Ridiculous. Not only are these letters insanely long, but they are insanely detailed as well, creating yet another reason why the book and the characters are completely unbelievable. If that's how the author wanted to write this, why did she do the letter thing at all? Which brings me to my final big gripe (I've leaving the small ones out)...

-- The ending. OMG if you value your sanity, do not, I repeat DO NOT finish this book. Because if you are sane, you will get to the ending and go, 'What? What?? Are you f-n kidding me?? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!' No joke. The ending, especially after 600 pages, has got to be the biggest let down of any major novel in recent years. I won't spoil it here (however badly I want to vent about it), but I swear to you: it will cause you physical agony when you read it.

In short: bad book, promises a lot and delivers none of it. Ignore it, read something else.

Superba carte, povestea te arunca pur si simplu din prezent in perioada in care tanarul profesor Rossi a venit in contact cu cartea Drakulya, o carte misterioasa care incearca sa il faca pe cititor sa gaseasca barlogul lui Dracula.
Fascinant scrisa!

I really need to give a reason that this book received such a low rating from me.

First, I want to say that the majority of the book was amazing. It was mysterious, and the descriptions were vivid. the author pulled me totally into this story. This book is over 700 pages and I rushed through it to find out what the great mystery was...only to be disappointed by a silly and rushed ending. I felt so robbed that I was tempted to throw this massive book but knew it would do a great deal of damage.

I feel like the author just grew weary of her story, and finding no convenient way to end the book, she just kinda stopped. :) The mysterious reason for the entire story, the tension building clue that was sought after in Turkey and Romania (described in such great detail that I feel that I have been there) was so ridiculous to be absurd. My mouth fell open when the truth was revealed for the evil, dastardly plan of an ages old vampire was so innocuous as to be a blasphemy against the dracula myth.