The Historian

I may be over-cautious hiding this review due to possible spoilers since most of the plot is self-evident (vampires and Dracula) or on the back (mysterious and ancient books).

I love idea of the “Davinci Code” approach to using history with legendary tales and finished the book because I have a strong interest in Dracula legends. Otherwise I would have donated it to the library in frustration unread- a rare thing for me to not finish a book.

Most of the frustrations came from a basic idea that characters should act consistent with their descriptions. If you decide the main characters are researchers from major Universities with years (and decades) passing after receiving an ancient book then they need to act smart enough to belong at a University. Never do they question WHY the book was left. This would seem to be a very obvious question for anyone - especially for brilliant professors discussing the book and research with other brilliant professors.

If you decide your main villain is a brilliant tactician surviving over centuries, then he needs to act brilliant. So, if his goal is to stay hidden and out of sight, he doesn't leave books for gifted researches. If he is trying to discourage people finding him, he doesn't walk PAST them to kill the people helping them and then ignore entire trips around the world solely for the purpose of tracking him. He acts consistent with his goals.

These basic things are so common sense it made me very frustrated. Unusual to see that level of inconsistency (even in characters presented as erratic) and especially in a major, promoted book.