I’m not knocking the Coppola film, as there are quite a few things that I appreciate about it, but it seems to have aged a little bit since I last saw it (on YouTube!).

I’ll check out the 1977 adaptation, though, as I was suspicious of it, but I’m glad to see a solid vote on it. I’ll let you know what I think when I pick up a copy.

Thanks again!

Believe it or not, there’s actually a mostly faithful adaptation of the book. It’s a BBC television adaptation from 1977 with Louis Jourdan as Dracula, and it may be my favorite Dracula adaptation. It’s not 100% faithful to the book, but it’s a lot more faithful than Coppola’s film. (I really like Coppola’s movie, by the way, despite the utter falsehood of its claims of being faithful to the book.) I believe there’s a small section about it in “The New Annotated Dracula,” along with a picture of Jourdan’s Dracula, but you can find more information about it online, particularly some clips on YouTube.

It’s a copy of the novel, but it features a great gray/black ‘stone’ motif of a wolfish Dracula, and it’s got the title emblazoned in red ‘blood.’ Very cool-looking, and it does include an introduction by Leonard Wolf. It’s serviceable.

I have the novelization that you’re referring to, AND actually wasted the time to read through it (I was in the sixth grade, I believe). It’s about as absurd as you can imagine.

Also: I find it fascinating that Bram Stoker’s Dracula is really Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, as based on James V. Hart’s Dracula. It’s incredible that no one has ever done a truly faithful film adaptation, though that one does seem to come closest about 30% of the time; I’ll admit that it’s fun to watch. The Murray-Harker wedding being contrasted with Lucy’s last initiation is a great scene; and seeing Gary Oldman piled on with extreme bat and wolf makeup is a fun novelty as well.

There is also one of the best pieces of music featured in that movie I’ve ever heard. It’s from the original soundtrack by Wojciech Kilar and is a track called ‘Love Remembered.’ You can download it from iTunes, and I highly recommend it; think classical sounding.

And thank-you again for your wonderful comments. They are greatly appreciated.

Certainly not the novelization, I hope. I was stunned to see a novelization of a movie that was advertised as being a faithful adaptation of the novel!

I appreciate the research that went into it, and I’ve pored over this particular edition for, what have now been, countless hours, but the notes do tend to stand out more so than the original text of the book; I do like the inclusion of Dracula’s Guest as an added appendix, though.

Thank you for your comment; I greatly appreciate it.

As for Klinger treating the story as fact, I didn’t mind it at first, but it has such a nauseatingly cutesy, “wink wink” tone to it that I wanted to throw the thing out the window after the 30th note explaining that a plot hole was clearly part of the conspiracy to cover up Dracula’s survival. And does this kind of thing really belong anywhere near a book that tries so hard to be so authoritative and scholarly? Why do you need to treat the story as fact in a playful manner to “delve into the detailed descriptions to examine the underlying reality and to explain matters that would have been self-evident to the Victorian reader”?