So much has been written about this book already that I just want to give a few quick thoughts...

Dracula (1897) by Bram Stoker is a novel for the ages.  No question it has been wildly popular, resulting in countless Dracula movies over the years.  Trust me - the movies are much better than the book.  Usually (though not always) when it comes to horror, the book is better than the movie.  In the case of Dracula, it's the other way around.  Every Dracula movie, in my opinion, is better than Stoker's book.  Why?  It's because Stoker's book is pretty boring and drawn out, to put it bluntly.  That's why the directors of Dracula movies over the years have left out the long, boring parts of Stoker's book from their movies.  The best example of this is in the movie Horror Of Dracula (1958), a movie that gets right to the point and leaves out a huge amount of Stoker's material.  In contrast, the BBC movie Count Dracula (1977) is the most faithful to the novel and doesn't cut out nearly as much material as other Dracula movies.  The fact that so much of Stoker's book IS included in the movie explains why the movie is quite boring and draaaaaaaaaaaags.  The directors who have excluded a lot of Stoker's book in their movies have gotten it right over the years - just get to the point, cut to the chase.

I find Salem's Lot (1975) by Stephen King as the much better vampire book, even with the fact that Stoker's book inspired King's book.
So much has been written about this book already that I just want to give a few quick thoughts... Dracula (1897) by Bram Stoker is a novel for the ages. No question it has been wildly popular, resulting in countless Dracula movies over the years. Trust me - the movies are much better than the book. Usually (though not always) when it comes to horror, the book is better than the movie. In the case of Dracula, it's the other way around. Every Dracula movie, in my opinion, is better than Stoker's book. Why? It's because Stoker's book is pretty boring and drawn out, to put it bluntly. That's why the directors of Dracula movies over the years have left out the long, boring parts of Stoker's book from their movies. The best example of this is in the movie Horror Of Dracula (1958), a movie that gets right to the point and leaves out a huge amount of Stoker's material. In contrast, the BBC movie Count Dracula (1977) is the most faithful to the novel and doesn't cut out nearly as much material as other Dracula movies. The fact that so much of Stoker's book IS included in the movie explains why the movie is quite boring and draaaaaaaaaaaags. The directors who have excluded a lot of Stoker's book in their movies have gotten it right over the years - just get to the point, cut to the chase. I find Salem's Lot (1975) by Stephen King as the much better vampire book, even with the fact that Stoker's book inspired King's book.