ABANDONED AT 45%

After reading 320 pages, I have the feeling that we haven't advanced at all. There is a mysterious book related to Dracula, the ancient ruler Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, disappearances, persecutions, history... And all of this, for what? For nothing.

After laying the foundation of the story, it is supposed that the adventure and mystery journey of the characters begins. But rather, they stumble almost randomly. The same idea is repeated over and over again, and there are events that lead nowhere. We won't even talk about the plot of the daughter. Sometimes the author remembers her and it's just to tell you that she is still on her mission, that she is traveling, but that's it.

The number of coincidences is excessive. There are so many that the journey of discovery is absurd. The protagonists hardly make any discoveries on their own. Everything is handed to them on a silver platter by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and moreover, the discoveries don't lead anywhere either. There is no connection between ideas or deductions. Everything is like "Oh, this document is related to our objective or to Professor Rossi. It's important!" but that's it, nothing is drawn from it. Or things like "Vlad was in such and such a city and was a great enemy of Sultan Mehmet II, and maybe he is buried here. He also did horrible things like impaling people." And all the information about Vlad Tepes, for what? A bunch of historical data that is irrelevant.

The fact that we call Dracula in a bunch of different ways and none of them really stick has also driven me crazy. And Bela Lugosi has nothing to do with this here. If we are talking about the real man who inspired Dracula, the actor Lugosi has nothing to do with it. He is an iconic figure in cinema and the incarnation of the mythical vampire in the industry, yes, but he doesn't contribute to the plot.

And the characters are less interesting than a salad without dressing.

I'm not saying that everything has to make sense and fit together in the end, but I can't wait 700 pages to find out.

As a child, I couldn't watch horror movies. I would hide behind the chair, scared of my father's huge anger and my mother's great amusement. I had become so specialized in this that they didn't even notice when I slipped away... It's not that they gave true "horror" at that time, but here and there a scary scene would slip in. I decided to "cure" myself by going to the movies. The film was about Dracula - thick bundles of hair fluttering with wings attached by glue, bare fangs with the sharpness of a scalpel, malicious bat crypts and a beautiful cat with a bare neck. And I liked it (and the theater was full, there was no place to run away). And until now, I can neither read nor watch horror. But I still like Dracula!

Elizabeth Kostova didn't add anything known for the feudal bloodsucker with feudal power, but she did describe an extremely long journey through the picturesque corners of Europe in the 30s, 50s and 70s. The length often induces carelessness, and most of the adventures are sympathetic (only the libraries got to me more!). Naturally, she overdid it with the slow tempo, the number of pages and the deliberate delay of the action. The heroes are also far from being any uniquely dominant personalities. There is something slightly James Bond-like in their adventures, only there are no martinis, but a few angry vampires and a large number of scary legends and fictions, mixed with pseudo-historical reports and notes from the margins from Albion to Istanbul. So - with a leap here and there - it's a quite decent thriller with curious travelogues and very little bloodshed, a good pre-bedtime non-committal experience.

2.5⭐️

————

"... we, the historians, are interested in things that are to some extent a reflection of our own ego, perhaps even a part of us - a part that we would not dare to study outside the realm of science."

Whoa.. I just completed this book approximately five minutes ago and I'm still in the process of assimilating all of it.

Let me state clearly that The Historian is neither an effortless read nor a rapid one - yet it is most definitely worth the effort. Seriously, do pick up this book.

I don't wish to disclose anything about it, simply because one of the most enchanting aspects of this book is its capacity to keep you engaged in thought throughout. With each chapter and every letter, my mind was continuously attempting to piece things together as I was truly eager to know what was transpiring. (Did I mention that half the time you'll be completely clueless about what's going on?)

Let me also commend Elizabeth Kostova's evident and outstanding research. Throughout the entire book, I repeatedly thought about the extensive research she must have conducted for this book to be coherent, and it did not disappoint. Everything was nearly flawless, aside from a few paragraphs that I had to reread to fully comprehend.

The only real drawback would be that at times I did find myself slightly bored (albeit not for long). However, the biggest negative was initially that this was Kostova's only book! I really relished her writing and would have loved to see what other historical fiction tales she could conceive. [EDIT 2019: It's actually not her only book! I don't know what I was referring to. She has two others!]

Overall, it was a pleasantly challenging book. One of the few books that kept me awake late into the night.

The Historian is truly captivating from the very beginning! I have a penchant for mysteries that involve travel. However, I don't believe the author realizes it, but in reality, she isn't referring to Vlad; rather, she is alluding to the Antichrist. She repeatedly mentions the Quran and stories from the Ottoman Empire, an island where he is imprisoned. The truth is, she is discussing an actual individual we are familiar with, but foreigners are not. They have their own legends, but not the truth.

I constantly envision Cate Blanchett as Helen. I simply can't help it.

The tone of admiration the author has for Vlad is truly revolting and giving me a headache. It merely serves to prove to me that the West and the East will never truly meet. His own brother and people despised him, yet she provides him with justifications and validations as if he were a wronged hero. In fact, he was a sick, psychotic tyrant, and I'm extremely glad he was beheaded by the Ottoman Empire. As someone who adores history, I will present this idea to the author for her to ponder. Christians have brought all manner of evil throughout history in every land they inhabited. When the Muslim nation inhabited their lands, they emerged from their era of darkness. Do you think that's a coincidence? The best thing that ever occurred to the West was us. We removed individuals like Vlad and shattered the power of the church, which killed and destroyed countless people and lands based on religion and color. We Muslims didn't do that, regardless of what your history books claim. To prove it, all the historical sites in both our lands and yours are still preserved because, as Muslims, we don't believe in killing locals or burning and destroying buildings and lands. Islam has brought stability and growth to every land it has inhabited. Don't rely on just one source when reading history and call yourself a scholar. People of all different religions live in peace in our lands and among us.

As for the ending, it was disappointing. I had expected the daughter to play a more significant role. I desired the entire Mina charm from Stoker's Dracula, but it was lacking. It seems as if the author was afraid to create a romance (aside from that between Helen and the father). She talks extensively about the weather, travels, food, scholars, and their books. A man like Vlad couldn't possibly be educated, let alone sane (don't even get me started on the creepy library). They claim Hitler was the worst, but I have to disagree.

The first third of the book is rather dull. The action only begins to build up in the second part. And the third part is truly exceptional. It seems to me that Kostova saved the best for last. Considering that this is her debut novel, I would like to believe that she still has a great deal to offer.

I found the initial third uninteresting due to the basic premise: that Dracula and/or his associates, specifically Vlad the Impaler, are still alive. What sets this off is a book discovered on the bookshelves of a university professor who has a daughter. The said book piques the daughter's curiosity about Dracula, leading her to hunt all over Europe for Bram Stoker's most famous fictional character. Going through this is like reading an old, typical children's book where, when the elderly storytelling grandma, sitting on her creaking rocking chair, lifts the first page of the book, its characters leap out, and the innocent children gasp and, with their eyes wide open, shriek with joy and happiness.

Then, in the second third, Kostova ratchets up the tension. It's as if the book has graduated from elementary school and entered high school. First, I realized that the book was based on Kostova's real experience with her father. The latter was really fond of telling the young girl Kostova tales about Dracula, which truly made her interested in the old count's life. When I get bored while reading a book, I usually find ways to make it interesting, such as looking up entries on the internet about the author or the milieu of the book. At this point, the three milieus become very evident and quite interesting. The first is Paul, the father of the narrator and his mentor, in the 1930s. The second is Paul himself in the 1950s, and the third is the unnamed narrator (presumably Kostova herself) in the 1970s. The plot becomes engaging when the narrator realizes that the woman her father encountered in the 1950s is actually her mother. So, the father sends her back home to search for his own mother, and the daughter looks for her father. Apparently, there was no email, GPS, FB, SMS, or Skype in the 1950s or the 1970s. That's fine.

The intellectual and brilliant aspects of the novel are in the last third. It's as if Kostova has graduated from high school and become a college student. Here comes the travelogue part of the book. Istanbul. Hungary. A flashback to Romania. Helen's mother has had an affair with the professor (of her husband) and is found to be a direct descendant of Vlad the Impaler. I DID NOT EXPECT THIS, and even though I know all of this is Kostova's work of imagination, I thought it was well done. From then on, Kostova was unstoppable. I won't tell you the rest of the story to avoid giving too many spoilers. Just trust me that the three stories within it are tightly and skillfully interwoven, and I had to double-check if this was really Kostova's first.

It's a very nice book for a first novel. I'm impressed. Some of my friends didn't like this book at all. Maybe they didn't finish reading it. Especially if they stopped somewhere in the first third? Ugh, that was really a huge bore.

Upon rereading this, I decided to take a star away. For me, this truly merits a one-star review.

The Historian is a long-winded and tiresome read. It's a terrible mystery/vampire novel, yet a decent travelogue of 1970s Eastern Europe. It borrows the method of Dracula by Bram Stoker but fails to come close to its execution. I usually enjoy long-winded tales, books set in the past, about books, and with characters as scholars. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is one of my all-time favorites, and I still enjoy picking up The Club Dumas for a "smart" guilty pleasure. So, this should have been right up my alley, but it was even more of a chore the second time around.

First, the good: Kostova did extensive research and traveled to the places in her novel, and it shows. The sense of place as we move around Europe is quite good, especially in Istanbul, Budapest, and Romania. She pays nice attention to detail in the travelogue-oriented parts, which is necessary for establishing atmosphere and scene and is overall welcome and well-accomplished.

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

First problem: the first narrator is entirely pointless. She has no personality and very little page time. Her only purpose is to ask her father questions and read from his letters. She has a few moments of action near the end but does nothing significant in those moments. You don't care about her, and you almost forget she exists. Since Kostova has one voice for all 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, her entire timeline means very little to the reader. The portion we care about is Paul's past, his research, journeys, and trials with Helen. Paul and especially Helen are far more compelling characters. The third is Rossi's, which informs Paul and Helen as they piece together clues. I could deal with this, but the problem is that we are supposed to be gathering all this through letters that Paul has provided his nameless daughter. However, the long-winded prose and sentences, and 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 setup unbelievable. And because how Paul writes letters sounds like how the narrator talks (and like Rossi's letters too), I found it even harder to swallow, especially after recently reading Stoker's Dracula and seeing how well he pulled it off, being true to character voices and making a letter sound like a letter.

If Kostova had removed the unnecessary first narrator, gotten rid of the epistolary format, and centered the narrative around Paul and Helen with Rossi's flashbacks/letters, the book might 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's not good that the research and scholarship of Dracula are far more interesting than the character himself when he finally appears. And what's the point of giving us such a rich history of Vlad Tepes/Vlad Dracul if it amounts to nothing when he appears on the page? The idea of Dracula is far better than Dracula himself, which is a huge letdown. And what is Dracula's master plan? What is his motivation for leaving creepy little books as calling cards and having his flunkies kill cats and side characters? Why have these historians been 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, but we're told little about that.) And I thought Stoker's Dracula was absent, but at least he built the horror and tension to make us believe in his cruelty and malice. Here, we're told about young Vlad Dracul's impaling exploits in letters and research, but it's all undone by the dry, overstuffed language and the absence of any impaling activities in the main narrative. Why even be Vlad the Impaler if he never impales anyone??? Kostova's Dracula is entirely neutered when he appears on the page and ultimately ruins any charm or creativity in the historical research.

If I thought the climax of Stoker's Dracula was a bit weak, the climax of The Historian, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. It was that bad, short, stupid, and unsatisfying for me. Fortunately, I will never need to read this book again: it's two readings too many as it is.

"The Historian" presents several captivating aspects. It contains gripping sections that draw the reader in, along with some truly beautiful prose. Moreover, it offers original and intelligent ideas, particularly regarding the nature of history, research, and their influence on our modern lives. However, upon completing the text, I wasn't overly impressed. After devoting the time to read this 600+-page novel, I felt a sense of disappointment when it didn't leave me with more than a mere "I'm done" feeling.

The initial 300 or so pages of the text are exciting and well-written, but then the pace slows down significantly, even slower than the pilgrimages of the medieval monks it describes. I'm not sure where Ms. Kostova's editors were during this process, as they seemingly dropped the ball. If you have a penchant for historical texts, enjoy thriller genres, and have an interest in the legend of Dracula, then this text is likely worth your time. However, if you're not passionate about all three, I believe you won't enjoy this novel. I'm aware of many people who despised this text and didn't finish it. I know only one person, a PhD in History, who loved it. Personally, I find myself in an ambivalent position, and I wish it weren't so.

Superba carte!

The story simply throws you from the present into the period when the young teacher Rossi came into contact with the book Dracula, a mysterious book that tries to make the reader find Dracula's lair.

The writing is fascinating! It takes you on a thrilling journey through time and space, making you feel as if you are right there with Rossi, experiencing all the excitement and danger.

The author has done an excellent job of creating a vivid and engaging world, filled with mystery, horror, and adventure.

Whether you are a fan of horror stories or just looking for a good read, this book is sure to satisfy.

So, pick up a copy today and prepare to be transported to a world of darkness and danger!

I've read Bram Stoker's book ‘Dracula’ numerous times, for I simply adore its style. Elizabeth Kostova has managed to capture the tone of ‘Dracula’ to absolute perfection in her book, ‘The Historian’. If a book could have descendants, then ‘The Historian’ is indeed the grandchild of Stoker's work.

‘The Historian’ is an extremely long book, yet I loved every single word of it. I'm aware of those who dislike it, and I concede most of their complaints. However, I don't really care. I truly liked it. It is a wonderful book, remaining true to the spirit of Stoker's Dracula while adding its own embellishments.

The Stoker's book ‘Dracula’ was centered around Victorian middle-class society, filled with intense secret dreads and fears, dark folk tales, wolves in the night, respectable and repressed deep emotions, strict social mores, and above all, epistles. It had a formal and 'correct' nature, and a very late 19th-century atmosphere - with fog, creepy cities, and lonely villages, and was full of quasi-scientific and academic quality reasoning and research into vague, barely understood new discoveries.

While ‘The Historian’ is obviously a copy of Stoker's style (in my opinion, a virtuoso performance by Kostova), it delves into the world of university professors, specifically history scholars. They use librarian research methods and scientific doctrines to discover and solve mysteries from centuries past. This particular search is given a horror-driven impetus due to Dracula being its subject, and as the story progresses, there is severe danger to our heroes. The horrors of living under Communism, which is clearly a noir existence even when benign, are touched upon briefly. The horrors of the Ottoman Empire in warfare as well as of the eastern European autocrat leadership are equally exposed. Eastern European Communism had a rather horrific origin too.

Even though the action of 'The Historian' passes through many countries, various types of letters and manuscripts, several point-of-view narrators, and many time-lines, I was always enthralled and eager to follow the paper trail these brave civilian academic characters set into epistles in true historian/librarian professional research methodology. They heroically seek the most dastardly evil monster that has walked for 500 years! (sound of a heart beating slowly and darkly, which, come to think of it, actually should be the short description of this book)

: )

This novel could have been greatly improved if large portions of the first half had been removed.

While the first half is enjoyable as a travelogue, especially when it showcases the Eastern European scenery and the impressions of Budapest, it quickly becomes tiresome. By the time the book starts to gain momentum again, I was already quite bored.

The last third is无疑 the best part of the book. So, do make an effort to persevere until you reach that point.

The main aspect that I have to complain about is that, given the title and the premise of the book, I had expected a more substantial historical account.

The few scraps and tidbits that the author provided about Count Dracul / Vlad Tepes were rather unsatisfactory. I didn't learn anything new about Vlad from this book that I hadn't already known from Wikipedia.

I did enjoy the polished, almost Victorian prose, which seemed to fit the setting of the book. However, not all modern readers may appreciate such a detached style.

I also quite liked the sub-plot about the protagonist's parents.

Overall, I would say that the blurb is rather misleading because this is not an exciting, nail-biting read.

I truly liked this book.

It's not exactly a traditional horror novel. Sure, there are those spine-chilling moments when the historians, who are the main protagonists, are directly assaulted by the ancient evil they are delving into.

However, it's more like a complex and multi-layered family history. An obsession that gets passed down from one historian to another. Each one is in pursuit of the truth behind an almost impossible concept - that the historic Dracula still exists and doesn't want the real story about him to come to light.

This is a subtly captivating and intense book. It features the stories recounted by the father's historian mentor, the father himself, his daughter, her mother, and occasionally others.

The voices, whether in the form of tales or letters, maintain a quiet but palpable tension throughout.

You won't even realize that you're reading such a lengthy novel because the suspense never lets up. It keeps you hooked from beginning to end.

Overall, it's a remarkable piece of literature that combines elements of history, mystery, and a touch of the supernatural to create a truly engaging read.

I finished reading the book, and I'm glad I didn't let it defeat me!

As I was attempting to convey the essence to Darkk, he said, "So, like 'National Treasure', but with vampires." "Sort of," I replied, "but not as entertaining." (Which is quite bad, considering I kind of liked 'National Treasure' despite myself.)

**Mild Spoilage throughout**

Anyway, where should I begin? First and foremost, the book was excruciatingly slow and tedious. There were endless details about architecture, food, what someone was wearing, and which arm they had their purse on. If this wasn't absurd enough on its own, these minutiae are presented to us in letters supposedly written in a hurry, over 20 years after the events took place!

Then there was the constant bouncing back and forth in timeframes. Just when something started to get interesting with Helen and Paul, we would suddenly jump into what I began to think of as "the present", for no apparent reason! As I mentioned this to Darkk, he said it was like a commercial break, and that's precisely what it felt like.

The characters were extremely one-dimensional, and all the letters were written in the same voice. Without the little telltale signs to indicate who was speaking, there would be no way to distinguish them.

And the romances! There was no real build-up or development. In just three days, a sheltered village girl is sleeping with a random guy, and a 16-year-old, also sheltered girl, is getting hot and heavy with a college boy... and in 23 days, Paul and Helen are engaged to be married. I mean, really? If I could have believed the romances at all, I might have felt more for the characters, but I didn't, and I don't.

And the coincidences! Let's just happen to sit in a random café and have some guy, who just so happens to have also received a book, start talking to us for no reason, and we all find out we're part of the same hunt. Or, let's talk to the only other native-English person at a conference and discover that he's involved too! Oh, what are the odds? Heck, even the characters seemed distrustful of these coincidences...

And the reasoning.

**MAJOR SPOILERS**

This entire thing - all this drama, people being warned, disappearing, and being attacked - all because Dracula can't organize his own library? Really!? That's what we're given as the reason?

I actually quite liked the scholarly, aristocratic Vlad. Since Kostova portrays him so negatively throughout the book, as nothing but "the fiend" and "the evil", I rather enjoyed the quiet, almost debonair Dracula. However, the fact that the whole purpose of the story was so stupid was just a bit annoying, especially after slogging through hundreds of pages of pointless minutiae to get there.

Not to mention how easy it was to kill him. My goodness, that last confrontation was so anti-climactic! Of course, as we find out in the epilogue, is it really "the end"? Dum-bum-bum!

**/SPOILERS**

So, some people who liked the book say, "Well, it's about 'historians' - what did you expect?" Well, considering that the back of the book claimed it was "sinister and suspenseful" and "exciting and will keep readers enthralled", I didn't expect to be monumentally bored for most of the book. I would also have expected to be a little bit enthralled, excited, or have some vague sense of suspense. But there was nothing.

Perhaps part of the problem is that it's all told in the past tense. We have no fear for the daughter or the father. We can pretty much guess how Rossi will end up. And we don't care enough about Helen, or anyone else, for that matter.

I was also irritated that while Paul will grudgingly respect the Ottomans for their strange mix of barbarism and aesthetics, they give no such equal treatment to Vlad.

Even as far back as the 1800s, there have been different depictions of the reign of Vlad Tepes - either as a sadistic tyrant or a horrific hero. In present-day Romania, he is a folk hero. He sided with them against the Saxon merchants who taxed them heavily and defended them and the land from the invading Turks. Yes, he was brutal - but the story conveniently glosses over the fact that he learned his brutality from his imprisonment with the Turks.

There are those who argue that the pamphlets so heavily referenced in the book about his barbarism are propaganda - things written by his enemies to paint him in the worst possible light, exaggerating his brutality.

And the Garden of the Impaled (which happened only once in recorded history - not as frequently as the book suggests) was actually a stroke of tactical genius. Here he was, with his small army severely outnumbered by the encroaching Turks, and then up went the Garden, made mostly of Turkish prisoners-of-war. The Turks, already battle-weary from getting as far as Targoviste, were horrified by the brutality. Oh, yes, it was brutal, make no mistake. But it was also a brilliant tactic - a use of psychological warfare.

And, yes, the boyars hated him. But the book makes it seem like he was hated solely because of his brutality - and he didn't exactly treat them well. He did kill many and put the rest to hard work, which killed them. The book fails to mention that these people buried his elder brother alive, and he was getting his revenge while securing his position. It also doesn't mention that one reason the boyars hated him was because he tried to give more power to the peasants and less economic advantage to the boyars.

Oh, yes, I know - he's the main villain of the story... you can't paint him in a sympathetic light. You can't see him as anything other than a tyrant. Many have said that even if the story is long, the history is interesting - but how much more interesting is the strange dichotomy of this brutal, cunning, and often charitable man?

Also, speaking of history, there is a lot of emphasis placed on the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks. However, the story once again glosses over the fact that Constantinople was not at its peak during the siege because of the sacking that took place some two hundred years prior during the Fourth Crusade, in which the Latin Church overthrew the Orthodox church and took over. Some sources even argue that the Byzantine peasantry was just as happy to lose their political independence to the Ottoman Empire because at least then they could keep their religious observances - something not so leniently granted by the Holy See. Isn't it ironic that the Turks would be kinder to them than their Christian brethren?

But we get no sense of the complicated politics in the book.

We also get a glimpse of non-existent ruins on Snagov - which is just a tiny spit of an islet. It's a pretty place, to be sure, but I can find no record of there ever having been a prison there, so I'm not sure where that came from.

So to those who say "but the history is interesting", I suggest actually reading up on the history because I'm not sure you can really trust this book as an accurate source. After all, that's why it's called historical fiction.

**

I would say the book got more readable towards the end, but I'm not sure if that's because I took a break from it or not. I was also rather annoyed at how the whole thing was about finding Drac and Helen, and then once everything is neatly wrapped up, you don't really care who has died, who has lived, and who will die. I mean, the narrator hardly seems to care when she casually drops some information about what's to come, so why should we?

**

The only reason I'm giving it two stars instead of one is because I still think the premise was interesting, even if the execution was dreadfully boring, and I did quite like the portrayal of the scholarly Dracula, if not his lame motivations.

This is one book that might actually be improved upon when it's turned into a movie. Since one of the things that dragged the book down was all the travelogue details, the movie could definitely have a better pace. Hopefully, they'll also change it so that it's told more in the present tense and maybe actually raise the stakes a little (i.e., create suspense) and make you care about the characters more. (In my opinion, they could actually drop the whole daughter part of the story. They could make it a present-tense story of Paul and Helen searching for Rossi and Dracula, interweave Rossi's tale, and cut out the parts with the daughter entirely, since it didn't really add anything to the story to have the three different threads going on at the same time.)