I am not a fan of the original book, which I think has major flaws. But this is by far the best edition of the book I have ever read, and the annotations are both helpful and interesting (my rating is a blended rating of the book and the annotations; I'd give the annotations 5 stars). I especially liked how the annotations include recipes for unfamiliar dishes mentioned in the story, which was a nice addition that I've never seen in any other annotated book. ( )

The annotations really make this book more accessible as a modern reader, and clued me into facts I had completely overlooked before (I have read this book many, many times). ( )

With this—probably my second or third—reading of “Dracula,” certain surprising aspects of the novel (which would elude most first-time readers) became glaringly apparent to me. I will forego a summary of the plot, since the tale is almost universally known. Instead, I’ll simply identify those aspects of the novel that seem to go unrecognized in the wake of its legacy and undeniable impact on the horror genre and our culture’s insatiable fascination with vampires. First of all, the narrative structure of “Dracula,” despite its being a conventional Victorian romance, is quite postmodern—the titular character is, in fact, the antagonist of the story rather than the protagonist; the tale is told from the perspectives of numerous narrators, and this poly-vocal, cobbled-together story features numerous narrative voices (none more annoying than Van Helsing’s convoluted and at times unintelligibly purple prose) and genres (diaries, letters, newspaper stories). And, shockingly, the conclusion of the novel deconstructs the entirety of the narrative that has preceded it. Jonathan Harker writes:

“We were struck with the fact, that in all the mass of material of which the record is composed, there is hardly one authentic document; nothing but a mass of type-writing, except the later note-books of Mina and Seward and myself, and Van Helsing’s memorandum. We could hardly ask any one, even did we wish to, to accept these as proofs of so wild a story.” (pp. 444-445)

This edition is particularly rich and rewarding for readers who are returning to “Dracula” for subsequent readings. Leonard Wolf’s introduction and his abundant footnotes enrich the tale and supplement the story in a highly entertaining fashion. It’s like reading the novel with a literary tour guide looking over your shoulder and making sure you don’t miss any point of interest.

Ultimately, a careful rereading of “Dracula” reveals just how little it contains of what we now consider conventional about the vampire myth. The “horror” it contains is also quite tame—much of the terror throughout the novel is masterfully implied rather than blatant, and Dracula himself is hardly even present for the majority of the action. “Dracula” is indeed a classic—one that rewards rereadings, reconsideration, and constant review. ( )

Lots of very interesting information, but Wolf's choices of what to annotate and what not to are often counter-intuitive.

For a more in-depth review, please see http://horror-fiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/reviewthe_essential_dracula_ed_le... ( )

I would suspect that, by now, anyone who does not know the plot of Dracula has been living under a rock for more than a century. So we won't talk about the story. Instead, we'll talk about the book. The Annotated Dracula is a fabulous edition of Stoker's novel, with commentary by Harlan Ellison, Robert Bloch and many more. Includes the "lost" first chapter, "Dracula's Guest"; a selected bibliography and filmography. Illustrated. Introductory essay by Leonard Wolf. A must have. ( )