Can anyone direct me to other online discussions of this book?

Cowboy, I gotta ask, what's wrong with this discussion? :)
But, I don't know any others and I went looking.

Nothing wrong. I just wondered if there was a broader forum on this subject anywhere.

I'm coming into this discussion a bit late. I loved this book. It was a selection for my book club and sadly, only two of us loved the book and so the discussion was lacking. The others wanted to rip the book apart instead of focusing on the questions the book brought forth.

A few thoughts: I've read bios on the real Vlad Dracul and he was, although bloodthirsty, a national hero. He single-handedly stopped the Turks from advancing by impaling and displaying their bodies as a warning.

In the end of The Historian, Dracula was shot with a single silver bullet - just one. But we don't know that it really even hit him. Could an immortal evil man who has been strengthening himself for 500 years be killed by a single bullet? What if it just grazed him? Or missed his heart? They left him for "dead" but never really got close enough to double-check. They made sure Rossi was dead via a stake through the heart. Why then, didn't they make sure with Dracula?

In my opinion, the Barley/daughter relationship was over when, in the hotel room, he moved away from her and said, "Ah, you're just a kid." At that point, he emotionally removed himself from the future of the story.

The dragon tattoo was a signal, I think. A way of identifying family members. Maybe, just speculation, those with a dragon tattoo are more suseptable to Dracula's bites. It is a way of ensuring the lineage continues.

The book at the end, presented to the daughter in Philly was the proof that Dracula was not defeated by three scholars. The saga continues... not because of a sequel, in my opinion, but because the daughter, whose middle name is Helen, but I don't recall the first name, is a direct decendent of Dracula. They are linked and her life will repeat the pattern.

PAM

Pam,

I read it for another book club as well and was in the minority there for liking the book. Most of our readers were disappointed by the hype, felt the ending and Dracula's revelation at the end was sort of ho hum, and there were too many plot holes. I think what really killed it for some readers, though, was some of the long, drawn out research, such as the chapter relating the monk's documents. I really enjoyed it, though, and liked it for the history and the questions that it raised. The fact that it left certain matters unresolved at the end didn't bother me the way it did some members of my book club.

I agree! The research and the wonderful weaving of fact and fiction is what made this book so fantastic. This type of book, I believe, would only seem attractive to those who enjoy non-fiction as well as fiction. A straight fiction reader may get bored by all of the manuscripts and background and get a "get on with it already" attitude.

The part about the monestary in Spain was actually one of the highlights for me. I loved the way religion was woven into the plot. Fascinating that she chose a church crypt for his hide-away yet crucifixes stopped him.

And yes, I admit that for a split-second I thought, "Hmmm, immortality and all of those books and all I have to do is be a vampire?"

Did anyone see the special on A&E last night about vampires and vampire legend? It was rather interesting until they went Hollywood and "Anne Rice-d" the rest of the program. I turned it off at that point.

PAM

Good point above about the intermingling of fact and fiction. I, for one, enjoyed the wealth of detail and the careful plotting of nested tales.

As an aside, yesterday I was delighted to find this in pristine condition at a garage sale. Easy to part with those two dollars!

Regarding whether Dracula lives on, I thought Kostova wanted to leave us with the impression that Dracula's essence jumped to the narrator (Paul's daughter)-presumably at St. Matthieu des Pyrenees. At the very end of the book, she is gazing out over the city of Philadephia and "imagines" the scene with Dracula arriving at the Lake Snagov monastery in late 1476 where he greets the abbot and then retreats to his tower to contemplate the future. There are rich personal details in this imagining that the narrator cannot possibly know unless Dracula's memory is buried within her. I find her reverie more tantalizing evidence that Dracula still lives than her receiving the dragon book, which might have been passed on by minions. I thought that Kostova was planting the seeds for a sequel, but read in a St. Louis newspaper interview that she said there would be no sequel.

Hello, people! I'm brasilian, and I don't write in english very well, so sorry.

I wanna know if Turgut Bora really exists, and if there is a text written for Shakespeare called The king of Tashkani... can someone answere me, please?

I'm a brand new member of this forum, and this thread, and I hope you don't mind my jumping into this discussion on "The Historian." I finished the book yesterday and really liked it. Some aspects of the book still have me a bit puzzled, and I thought I might be able to help answer a couple of the questions that have been asked already.

To start off, allow me to speculate on some open issues...

"Was Dracula actually killed?" That's a toughy. The last actual chapter sure gave that impression. Yet based on the epilogue, someone is still distributing the enigmatic dragon books. As a wag on another Web site put it, Dracula's own "Book of the Month Club" is still alive and well. My feeling is that, though Dracula showed all the signs of dying in the crypt, crumbling to dust in the process, the author preferred to leave the question open using the epilogue. She didn't want to be the one to put an end to the creative possibilities the Dracula character embodies by killing him off.

"Why Did Dracula deliver these books to the living and not bite them three times?" My guess is that anyone turned into a vampire via being bitten three times becomes essentially a slave to Dracula, but also becomes a bit of a zombie in the process. For this job of cataloguer of his library, Dracula wanted someone who was not only highly intelligent but also still had all their faculties intact.

"The librarian obviously wanted to find the tomb. Why didnÂt Dracula want him to find himself?" This is one my biggest questions, I haven't a clue. Maybe he turned out not to be the good choice Drac had originally thought, and Dracula was avoiding him! Anyone have other ideas?

"Why garlic, silver pistols and crucifixes?" Most descriptions of Eastern European vampire legends mention garlic and crucifixes as items that are useful in warding off vampires. On the other hand, I had thought silver bullets (not silver pistols) were the stuff of werewolf movies.

"Does he go back to kill Helen after she dies a natural death? Why, if she had only been bitten twice? Can a dead person be bitten a third time?" My feeling was that Paul simply didn't want to take any chances that Helen would somehow wind up among the undead. There's no guarantee that the stuff we've learned from legends and movies are facts set in stone. As to the idea of a dead person being bitten by a vampire, not according to the legends, anyway. Once a person is truly dead (whatever that means), there's no bringing them back.

"We are never told the daughter's name, or their surname - I wonder if there was a reason for this?" In an interview I read somewhere (found using a Google search), Kostova stated that "I left her unnamed as a literary experiment. I wanted to see if I could give her a full personality without the handle of a name."

"As for the name of Helen's mother: was it not "Getzi"? (I thought one narrator said that Vlad's line had almost died out and intermarried with Hungarians by...

More speculation...

"What did you make of Vlad telling the head Monk that there was this monastery in France which had learned to "outwit death by secret means?" I'm fairly sure he was referring to the monastery at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrenees-Orientales, and the legend told by the monk (in Chapter 76) about the early abbot who had been the "recipient of a curse in death," and who "rose from his coffin to do harm to the monks." This would have occurred not long after the year 1000. It's never explained why or how the vampire tradition began at that place at that time, but I think that was what Dracula was referring to.

"Does it say where dracula moved his library to?" Not that I remember; however, he did seem to have long-term connections with the monastery at Saint-Matthieu-des-Pyrenees-Orientales, so I'm guessing he was planning to move there.

Regarding the "three bites and you're undead" business, I had heard of this part of the vampire mythos years ago, so it certainly wasn't original with Kostova. I've been looking for any information on this in my references dealing with actual folk tales, and can't find a thing. It might have been something invented by Hollywood in the early years of vampire movies.

I can't believe how long these messages have become; I guess this is the sort of book that inspires a lot of speculation and analysis. I hope you'll find my contributions useful!

--Larry

I almost forgot; to speculate on a couple of Anderson_Demarchi's questions, as far as I'm aware, Turgut Bora is a character invented by the author. I can't find any reference to the name outside of the book. Also, the author has stated, in an interview, that she simply made up the story about the Shakespeare play "The King of Tashkani." It would be a lot of fun if it were true!

--Larry

I read this book awhile ago so it isn't fresh in my mind but I did enjoy it. The one thing about the way she wrote it was in the beginning it was easy to set down since it went from one person to another.

I was glad it was not trying to be a 'horror' one since it was enjoyable reading about the libraries, etc. Too bad you can not just go and get access to those places with such ease as someone already mentioned.

About the daughter and that guy, I thought it kind of mirrored her mother being on her own, though in love. I wasn't sure if she was now tatooed or would have her own daughter (if she has one) get one.

I dont really think of Vlad as 'evil' exactly though he was cruel. I think it is hard for us (or at least for me who has never experienced war and the worst thing being some fruit is out of season...) to imagine that time.

I was a bit confused about 'the order of the dracul' being some western european thing, I think that is what it said. I will have to look it up again. I had thought it was some ancient custom of theirs since I thought the superstitions had been around a long time. Does anyone know about that?

About those books, I wasn't sure if it was "dracula fan's" wanting to get some of his power from him and somehow guessing/knowing these people would be a key to it. I know, that idea is very fuzzy but it was clearer after I had finished it... I dont know, I do believe things happen for a reason and some things are meant to happen, etc. so it isn't that big a stretch to picture there are people getting these weird books every so often. I think that is why the one librarian was following them since I dont think Dracula wanted the guy around much or wanted him to do his 'purpose' and not bug him for more 'glory' or whatever you want to call it.

I thought the girls father finding the village with Draculas heir was a bit contrived but if you can 'go with' them getting the books for a purpose then I guess this works too...

That scene with the "nazi wannabes" was scary! Imagine how bad they would have to be if you are more afraid of them then the undead...

Larry, I will need to re-read parts of the book since that is an interesting point about the one French monastery.

I hope this thread is still going since I hope to refresh my memory about the book and come back and post some more.

Maria

Welcome, both Larry and Maria! Yes, the thread is still going, so feel free to keep adding comments as you see fit....I bought a copy of this after finding it in a library so that I can re-read it again in future. I am still puzzling over some issues in it.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but I'm just not sure how to take the main character recieving the book in the end or what it means. I'm not upset that it ended up that way, but given the length the author went to during the body of the book, I only felt it was rather abrupt.

Also, this is my biggest contention with the book and all of its 'coincidences' - which I am fine with . . . it was a supernatural subject so if we decide to immerse ourselves in the book and believe these things, the large number of such coincidences are easily reconcilable. Anyhow, I think the author overlooked the connection between Helen's dragon (on her shoulder), and the Crescent Guard. Shouldn't Paul and Helen at least have shared some mutual concern about this upon discovering that Turgut et al would kill Dracula and his decendents. It may be a stretch that they could find her true identity, but I felt the topic should have at least been broached. Anyone concur?

I agree with you mrblablazo. The coincidences bothered me- particularly the way they met Turgut for the first time.
That always strikes me as an easy way out for a writer.
Like Rossi getting amnesia.
And while I enjoyed the mystery of the dragon on the shoulder and the neat way it was handled, there should have been more discussion about it and its potential meaning.
The book in the end, however, gave me a little thrill/chill which I thought made an effective ending.

I just finished reading the book in spanish, my native language, and thanks to this forum I got answers to some questions and came clear on some details I had over-read; such as the fact that Paul's last name is never mentioned and It wasn't until he, Paul, was telling her about the day she was born that it hit me that I did not know her name???? But interesting, after the page 150 or so I just couldn't put it down.... and so many details got lost on my memory as I read, such as the drawing in the plaza whit the shadow in the back (Dracula chasing Paul)which at the end is mentioned by Helen when she was comming clean ....

and by the way, the weird neo nazi group found in the woods, was spoted by Barth Rossi and Georgescu not by Paul!!!!! before the first ran in to Helen's mom and even before he went to Greece and lost his memory. By the way, meeting Dracula brought back Barth's memory, as he recognized Helen's moms face when he saw her!

Un libro Excelente.......... y el capitulo 59 no es tan malo, yo lo lei 2 veces, es muy interesante en cuanto a la cronica misma de Zacarias, pero igual es "is one more needle stich in the process of getting all the clues"

Quieri leer el libro, pero no me gustar empezar. (I wanted to read the book, but I didn't like it to start) But now that I know this discussion is here, I'll read through and see if it can spark my interest.

BTW roxanna, bienvenido! (welcome!)

Since I bought this one, used, and since there are so many details I've already forgotten, perhaps it is time for a re-read. I found it fascinating.

Spoilers.......

I just finished The Historian so I am bringing this back. I loved it! I guess the biggest question is, "Is Dracula still alive?" I think no, that someone has taken his place. It seems like evil always has a "second in command" and that is who is redistributing the books. The librarian gets away in the end and he was desperate to find Dracula and I think he is the second. I think Paul went to back make sure Helen wasn't "undead". I think it was absolutely Dracula who bit Helen the second time. Dracula had lost Barth as his personal librarian and needed a new one. I agree he preferred to have his librarians willing accomplices because they were sharper than if they were completely converted.

Anyway, I will be passing this book along, I already have my two daughters frothing at the bit to read it. I guess they'll have to draw straws.

The book made me want to research more, and I love books that make me do this. As historical fiction (along with mystery) I loved ch. 59.

In the minus parts, I think she did not do the greatest job in giving the characters their own voices - especially through the letters. They all sound as written by the same person.

Interesting how she shows that horrible horrible things in history really did happen and still affect us today ex: Paul killed by a land mine from an old war)

Also interesting is the Christian v. Islam thing, like the Order of the Dragon (of which Vlad was part of), especially since the order seemed to be more political than purely religious. So much in common with our conflicts today.

I read up on the Jannisaries and interesting that the first ones where non-Muslims, like Christian Muslims and POWs that were exempted from military service. They ended up having such an important part in the Muslim world, almost like the Christian Crusaders.

See link below to see birthplace city of Vlad Tepes - every July there is a huge midieval fest there.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pictures of Sighisoara, Romania

Thanks for the interesting link. I enjoyed this novel so much I am planning to re-read it soon....

-bumbelbeez, how long ago was that 'I Hate The Historian' thread posted? I used our search engine and also googled it, but could find nothing.

I just finished the book. I didn't like it, but want to post my critique on it. I would have posted my musings on that other thread, but since I cant find it... And I dont want to turn your post in the opposite direction from which it was inteded by adding my negative comments to it.
So, would you mind if I posted it here? or would you rather I just start another post of my thoughts on it? Thank you! :-D
CMK

Ha Ha I don't care! Post it here. I dislike so many beloved books that I certainly understand someone not liking it. I'm in the middle of Suite Française right now and not lovin' it.
But what's not to like :-)? Always fun to discuss though.

Go ahead and post it. We all have varying opinions and tastes on this forum.

bumblebeez, I did not like "Suite Francaise" either when I first tried to read it. I had to read another of her novels first to get into her style. Then, I went back and was able to finish it.

I knew you wouldn't really mind a diffrence of oppinion, but I didn't want to go and redirect your post any with out permision...

Well, I heard so much good things about this book from you guys that I wanted to read it too. I went into this book not having any expectations for it, like I do with all books. I found myself disliking this book from nearly the first chapter, but I plodded on, figuring it got better later on. There was a great deal that annoyed my about this book, and soon even the little things started to bother me too.

But let me start with the praises. First I thought the authors idea for whole theme very interesting, tring to combine historical facts about Vlad with the legend of Dracula. I thought it very ambitous, but somehow it all failed for me.
I also like Kostova's writing, to a certain extent, and also her complexities in the book. And I too liked the romance between Helen and Paul. But thats where the liking ends im afraid.

Now for my dislikes (prepare for a lot!).
The first is the plot itself. There was so much about it that I felt just didnt connect. I felt it was very unsound, and that the author was trying to distract us from seeing it thru her writing and the complexities.

The dragon books. Why are these even neccisary? There was only one part that explaned this--Dracula wanted to intice Historians to see how close they would come to finding him (so he can make them the cataloger of his library). So if he WANTED them to try to find him why did he try to 'warn them away' by killing their friends etc.? Is Dracula so board that he has to play these perverted practical jokes? Lol, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just hold an interview for an eternal cataloger?
Everyone seems really superstitious about the Dragon book. How can they be so freaked out at simply finding a peculiar looking book? And why in the world would a HISTORIAN be scared at the mere mention of Dracula? And Paul seems like an milksop in comparison to the Amazonian Helen.

Another major thing for me was the "oh, its just a strange coincidence" thing. They always just happen to meet another dragon-book holder, who just happens to have some information, which just happens to lead them in the right direction WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCES!

I think I must have been the only one who didn't like the historical and traveling parts. They (Paul and Un-named Daughter and also Paul and Helen) bounce around from place to place so frequently that you dont know where you are. And then the descriptions of the places they go seem more like its out of a vacation brochure. But somehow it doesn't matter, because the only thing they really do in those countries is spend their time inside a library, a cafe, or their hotel. They only do a litte bit of sightseeing.
The historical parts covered too broad a spectrum. We were led down so many dead ends... I also thought the history (though I dearly love all sorts of Historical subjects) dry and text-book...

Well, all I can say in her defense is that it is her first novel and she took a decade to research and write it. I am planning to re-read it soon and see if the initial fascination holds.

I read The Historian when it first came out, and I'm another who didn't like it. Hearing all the hype before it came out, I thought for sure I would love it. I really enjoy books that involve history (fiction as well as non-fiction), and I like horror/dracula stories to boot. Plus it was about books! There's no way I couldn't like it, right?

Well...wrong! I don't remember all the details anymore, but certain parts I thought were just ridiculous. And I agree with Christin on Dracula's motives with the library. The dude has all eternity....he's going to go to all the trouble and bother for a frickin LIBRARIAN??!! Good grief!
Not my cuppa, that's for sure:-)

Kelly

-Kelly, glad im not the only one!
Another thing I disliked about it was how the author rather apologetically tries to 'expain away' some of the overly coincidental occurences.
One exaple (out of many) was at the end, when Helen and her family are reunited and are talking in the hotel. Barley tries to explain how it was Master James (aka. Hugh James) came to be in Dracula's toumb. He said that at school he had noticed a letter on James' big desk. He liked the letter's stamp so he examined it closer. He saw the name 'Turgut Bora' on it and remembered it because it was exotic. And seeing a Muslim man at the train station he obviously connected the two and called up ol' James to help.
CMK

I am curious to know if any of you here read and liked "The Rule of Four" or "The Shadow of the Wind". IMHO, these novels were similar in genre to "The Historian." I liked all three.

I've read both. I also liked all three. I think The Rule of Four was not quite as good as The Historian or The Shadow of The Wind but certainly good.

And would you put "The Name of the Rose" in the same category? (another one I liked).

I loved both The Historian and The Shadow of the Wind. I haven't read The Rule of Four or The Name of the Rose but I think they're in my TBR pile somewhere.

I'd like to re-read The Historian but I'd have to be in the right mood to do so. Maybe around Halloween.

I really enjoyed "The Historian" when I read it and thought it was an engrossing page turner. I can see, though, where the ending would be problematic and deflating for some readers, and I did think that Paul and Helen deserved something better than amnesia as an explanation (if you've read it, you know what I'm referring to). The parts that others didn't take to, such as the scholarly expositions and the travelogue, I rather enjoyed quite a bit. However, I ran out of bookshelf space, so I traded my copy. I doubt I'll re-read it with the ever increasing TBR pile needing much more of my attention. I also loved Zafon's book.

Hm, I don't know if I would put the Name of the Rose in exactly the same category because there isn't that going back and forth through time it's more of a murder mystery that takes place in the middle ages. Although, I liked all of them and would recommend them.

I just read over your discussion, which took place when I was "incommunicado" on babysitting duty-I read The Historian when it first came out and was thoroughly swept up in the tale and the mystery. I loved Ms. Kostova's writing and remember in particular getting into the history of the period in that part of the world, which I am unfamiliar with. I guess the descriptiveness of her written language and the historical aspect were my favorite parts.

Murraymint11 was asking about the last name of the family? and why James cried "Elsie" when he was dying? I think they said the father Paul was Paul Martin at some point, didn't they? As far as the narrator's first name, on page 606 they said she was named for Helen's mother but I don't think they ever said what her first name was, did they? But on page 626 didn't they say that James had avenged the person he'd loved the most--wasn't that his finacee whom the undead caused to be in a car-crash, Elsie who, was made a vegetable and had to be put in a home?
Also somebody said something about the amnesia--I know from personal experience that it can be very severe and take many years to get back huge things you wouldn't think you could ever forget, but before I experienced it myself I never would have believed it was possible.
and someone else said something aboutthe order of St (?) Michael? It wasn't St Michael but Legion of Archangel Michael--a real thing form the between-wars Romania, see Sturdza's The Suicide of Europe.

Hello! I just finished reading The Historian (a few years late, but glad that I did!) and really enjoyed it.

I was wondering if anyone knew where in the novel the narrator sees her mother, Helen, before she actually meets her at the end. In Chapter 79, the narrator says "I saw you", and I wanted to go back and see where.

Thanks!!!

As it so happens, I am re-reading this novel for the second time, as I liked it so much. As I get farther in, I will try to answer your question.

liz, I have your answer! At the end of chapter 27, I think the page number is 211, there is a sighting of a woman who is scanning the train passengers. Enough of a description is given that we know it is Helen. This takes place when Barley and the narrator are traveling by train, and Helen is on the trail of one of the characters. That was the only reference I could find.

I am soooo glad I re-read this novel. It is a real tour de force, and less confusing the second time. I picked up quite a few more details that had gone over my head the first reading. I still think the ending is amazing, as well as the preface....

I really loved this book too. I wish there was an unabridged audio version though.

Thanks so much, woodnymph! I'll be sure to find that page reference when I get home today! And maybe re-read the book a second time!

I just finished The Historian and I LOVED it!! It took me almost two months because I was listening to the unabridged audio version rather than reading it. I think it was over thirty hours long! I've decided to buy the book and read it for myself as there is so much that I probably missed.

One thing that is really bothering me is the identity of the man in the train. The one that asks the narrator where is your father? I can't recall now if she heard him speak or if he established some kind of psychic connection with her. Could it possibly have been Dracula or is it more likely that it was one of his minions? Was this ever cleared up?

As far as the ending (epilogue), I thought it was one of the truly chilling scenes in the novel.

I have always thought the man on the train was Dracula just like the man at the cafe. Dracula was portrayed as a sophisticated, elegant man but the vampire servants were not.

Did you buy/download the unabridged audio? I have been looking for it for years and only very recently found out they actually have an unabridged version available.
I'm glad you loved the book too! I hope they don't bastardize the movie but they probably will.

I agree with Bumblebee. When is the movie supposed to come out?

From what I have gleaned for free on the web- no imbd pro-the screenplay is still in the works but I don't recall the movie release year.

just joined discussion
wanted to say a couple of things;
agreed with many others, although contrived in many ways, enjoyed book very much, read twice.
has anyone seen the wikipedia page on DHAMPYRES which are decendents of a union of vampires and humans? these beings are described as having qualities that could describe helen and her daughter; including making good vampire hunters. also re. the end of the book. it is abosolutely necessary for a big question mark to hand over what did and didnt happen to dracua or his curse. there is a great 60s film by roman polanski called ' the fearless vampire killers' or 'dance of the vampires' watch this all the way through - laughs and all but watch all the way to the very end - you get that same feeling.
genniwren

Where in the book does it describe an accident that klilled Mr. James wife. I have re-read this book 6 times in a week and have not found anything referring to this. Plus, the spider bit, was to show how this strong women, has real feelings and can fall apart, as well as any of us. No looking deeper into that. Besides this is a book wonderfully written with much truth and history, but with superstition thrown in for fun. You must remember this or you go to far.

I am currently engrossed in "A Discovery of Witches" by D. Harkness, and its plot and style are reminiscent of "The Historian", in my view.

I thought the spider might have been Dracula- the size, being on her back (no crucifix there) It was ambiguous though.

Hugh James' wife's death is briefly described when he tells Paul his story....somewhere.
That sounds interesting, woodnymph! I need something great to read.