As has been pointed out earlier in the comm, one of the book's big problems is its cavalcade of cameos from other works. Newman wants this to be not only a Dracula book but also a Professor Moriarty book and a Dr. Fu Manchu book and an Everyone Who Ever Appeared in a Novel Set or Written in the Victorian Era book. It's not only wearying and distracting, but Newman doesn't do anything with these folks once they pop up - he's interested in references, not characters. The other issue is that the author thinks he's being really, really freaking clever - so clever that we might not understand how clever he's being without help, and so he includes really ridiculously obvious signposts as to their identities way past any need for them. At one point, for instance, Dr. Moreau appears (performing a vivisection with Dr. Jekyll). "'Man is inherently a brute,'" Moreau says, and the narration then takes note of his "hairy fists." OK, fine, he's the Moreau from The Island of, I think we got that already. But wait - then Moreau, talking of vampires, expounds on how the "'shapeshifters'" are "'an atavism...the first footfall on the path of regression to savagery.'" OK, OK, "atavism," shapeshifting, "savagery," it's the vivisectionist Moreau, we got it, thanks--"'Why,' [Moreau said,] 'we would...raise lesser beasts to human form.'" OK, OK, IT'S THAT MOREAU. SHUT UP ALREADY.
- The big mystery that's stymying Mycroft Holmes, Prof. Moriarty, *and* Dr. Fu Manchu (and therefore needs the hero's unique talents, you see) is ridiculously simple to solve, and anyone who takes as long as our own investigators to notice the vital clue needs to hand in his or her metaphorical badge. (Sherlock Holmes is indisposed, having been shuttled off to a prison camp for political malcontents with Bram Stoker.)
- I say that the cameo appearances have no purpose, but Newman brings on some characters (Lestat, for instance) solely to insult them and point out their alleged inferiority to his original creations. That's a really bald steal from the Mary Sue playbook and perhaps the biggest sign that Newman needed his cameo addiction reigned in.
- The book is ridiculously campy in its allegedly mature treatment of sexuality. Dr. Seward: "'Now I can find it in myself to feel sorry for the Art of those days, worried sick over his worthless girl, made as big a fool as I by the Light of the West, who would submit by night to the Beast from the East.'" So, did the Beast from the East win by pinfall, or was Lucy "The Light of the West" Westenra counted out? I hope Drac snapped into a Slim Jim after his big victory.
(I also hope everyone cut a promo with Mean Gene Okerlund beforehand.)
- Every homosexual character is a sniveling, predatory fop (or, in the lone female case, a mannish, overly-solicitous false friend). The book's portrait of Oscar Wilde is pretty bad.
- Speaking of noxious stereotypes: Did Newman realize, particularly in the final chapters, how much he was playing into the unsavory miscegenation theme that runs throughout the original Dracula, the atavistic Eastern Bloc ape running roughshod over the fair English by defiling its chief woman, with only the pureblood noble Frenchwoman who "has no equal" able to gainsay his rule? It seems that Newman's playing into a clear Hierarchy of White Culture.
(Also: the thoroughly incompetent light in which the book casts Queen Victoria and the fate it holds for her struck me as really disrespectful, even at over a century removed from her death.)
The book had a good premise but made abysmal use of it. I would've rather read a book about Sherlock Holmes breaking out of that vampire concentration camp, actually.