Rating: 
Summary: Just When I Though I Had Vampires Figured Out!
Review: Michael Romkey has been a successful vampire chronicler for some time now. For some unknown reason I have never picked up one of his tales before "The London Vampire Panic." In any case, led on by the blurb on the back, which made the book sound like a Dracula reprise, I decided to try it out. To my surprise, Romkey has written something that is quite a bit more than what I expected, with a very intriguing viewpoint about the nature of the vampire.On the surface, "The London Vampire Panic" is indeed modeled after "Dracula." Six men, American and British gentlemen, are led through London by Dr. Abraham Van Helsing on a quest to stop an incursion of vampires from becoming a plague. Both noble and commoner alike are threatened as vampires attack, sometimes secretively and sometimes in plain sight. The trail leads through poverty stricken streets, to graveyards and autopsy rooms. Disraeli and Prince Albert are fear that law and order will break down if this evil is not stopped. As in "Dracula" the story is told from multiple viewpoints. The first narrator, Dr. Posthumous Blackley, is a young rake who represents the worst of Victorian immorality. While he is a good narrator, his constant focus on sexual escapades gives his description of the adventures of the vampire hunters a strong flavor of social commentary. When, a bit later, we get to read the testimony of a young prostitute who had been made a vampire, we are treated to more revelations about the underbelly of genteel society. But, for the most part, this is a vampire story, not an expose. Romkey seems unwilling to use the cliches typical of most vampire stories, so the story takes many intriguing twists. His creatures are both more sympathetic and more terrifying for their surprising and exceptional qualities. On the whole, I found "The London Vampire Panic" a welcome change from standard vampire fare. But traditionalists beware! Romkey provides both exciting narrative and food for thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Vampires in London
Review: Michael Romkey is the kind of writer that you really want to see succeed. Having read all of his books to date, I think he is two thirds of the way there; in that his style of writing is very good and he does introduce fresh and unique scenarios and concepts into his novels. However, other than "I, Vampire", there seems to be a lack of captivation with the books. By that I mean that at any point in his books, I could put it down and never pick it up again. To be fair though, I have never done that. In this novel, the story unfolds when there are numerous victims showing up dead, drained of blood with two bite marks in their necks. This happens in London, in and around the time of Jack the Ripper. Although Jack;s name comes up on several occasions, it is clear to everyone that these murders are quite different. When the murders hit close to home on the British government, the Prime Minister authorizes a formation of a secret committee to find the killer and put an end to the panic. Members include a variety of individuals with different backgrounds, and of course some are Vampire believers and others are not. The most interesting of the group is Dr. Van Helsing himself. Plans are made, investigations are performed and as they say ' the chase is afoot'. There are several endings to this story, both of which take up the last 100 pages of the book. The take on Van Helsing is one of the more interesting ones I've read and we are also finally introduced to more detail on the Illuminati. All in all, this is a good book ... not a great book, but better than some of his previous novels.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong start but fails in the end.
Review: Okay, here's the reason why I rarely read any vampire novels...it seems that most authors feel some compelling need to make "a fresh new twist on the vampire genre" as a reviewer put it, and that's what Romkey does with this book. Without giving away too much (for the benefit of those who still want to read this), Romkey strips away pretty much everything that makes a vampire a vampire with the exception of the need to drink blood. Even sunlight is a minor inconvenience that can be gotten used to. The book start off strong and I was egaged by it through the midway point. Unfortunately after that it stops dead in its tracks, filling out the rest of the book with pure exposition. Although the "Panic" is taken care of, it's by no means an exciting conclusion and the reader only hears about it second hand from the novel's characters. At one point I only finished the book because I had gotten so far along it it that it seemed a waste of time not to follow through. A plea to future authors: Would someone please write a vampire novel that doesn't change the basic vampire fundamentals? And for pete's sake stop trying to make vampires into sympathetic characters who are "appaled by what they've become and struggling to come to terms with it."
Rating:
Summary: Strong start but fails in the end.
Review: Okay, here's the reason why I rarely read any vampire novels...it seems that most authors feel some compelling need to make "a fresh new twist on the vampire genre" as a reviewer put it, and that's what Romkey does with this book. Without giving away too much (for the benefit of those who still want to read this), Romkey strips away pretty much everything that makes a vampire a vampire with the exception of the need to drink blood. Even sunlight is a minor inconvenience that can be gotten used to. The book start off strong and I was egaged by it through the midway point. Unfortunately after that it stops dead in its tracks, filling out the rest of the book with pure exposition. Although the "Panic" is taken care of, it's by no means an exciting conclusion and the reader only hears about it second hand from the novel's characters. At one point I only finished the book because I had gotten so far along it it that it seemed a waste of time not to follow through. A plea to future authors: Would someone please write a vampire novel that doesn't change the basic vampire fundamentals? And for pete's sake stop trying to make vampires into sympathetic characters who are "appaled by what they've become and struggling to come to terms with it."
Rating:
Summary: A Library Rental
Review: This is a well written novel with a good premise and a tight plot. It is marred, however, by numerous errors, some of which are howlers which completely negate the authenticity of the victorian period atmosphere which the author is trying for. For example, in the first ten pages, the primary narrator, an upper class physician: (1) refers to the "way in which a bottle of fine Naploleon ...ages in a darkened chateau" (brandy ages in casks, and does not age once bottled); (2) uses "goosed" as a verb in the modern, vulgar sense (the victorians had lots of sexual slang terms, but this isn't one of them); and worst of all, (3) calls the Prince of Wales, in 1879-80, "your majesty" (Bertie wasn't king until 1901, and only Queen Victoria could be so titled at this point. The proper form would have been HRH, and every victorian, much less one of Bertie's upper class cronies, like the doctor, would have known this.) The cumulative effect of all of this is very annoying. Too bad, because with a little basic research --or decent editing-- this would have bben a much better book.
Rating:
Summary: Annoying anachronisms
Review: This is a well written novel with a good premise and a tight plot. It is marred, however, by numerous errors, some of which are howlers which completely negate the authenticity of the victorian period atmosphere which the author is trying for. For example, in the first ten pages, the primary narrator, an upper class physician: (1) refers to the "way in which a bottle of fine Naploleon ...ages in a darkened chateau" (brandy ages in casks, and does not age once bottled); (2) uses "goosed" as a verb in the modern, vulgar sense (the victorians had lots of sexual slang terms, but this isn't one of them); and worst of all, (3) calls the Prince of Wales, in 1879-80, "your majesty" (Bertie wasn't king until 1901, and only Queen Victoria could be so titled at this point. The proper form would have been HRH, and every victorian, much less one of Bertie's upper class cronies, like the doctor, would have known this.) The cumulative effect of all of this is very annoying. Too bad, because with a little basic research --or decent editing-- this would have bben a much better book.
| 
