I'm not put off by books in the format of journal entries, etc. - in fact, some of them are fascinating. That said, I had a hard time finding this book one of the good ones. The pacing was VERY slow, leaving me feeling like I was working at trying to enjoy it, when I didn't. It starts getting interesting about a third of the way through, but by then I was so disenchanted "interesting" wasn't saying much. All in all, I was very disappointed. I guess I was looking for a bit more insight into the formulation of Dracula that all of the historical richness and Jack the Ripper didn't save it for me. ( )

The Dracula Dossier is an imagined collection of journal entries, letters and newspaper clippings gathered by Bram Stoker, the author of Dracula, and is complete with footnotes by the dossier's imaginary, anonymous compiler. The story that emerges through the collection is dark, foreboding, fantastic, and James Reese tells us that it is completely consistent with documented historical events. With the exception of more minor characters, all of the book's characters existed and, while there is not always proof that the book's events occurred, neither is there proof that they did not. This gives the book a sense of possibility which you don't always find in fictionalized history/biography.

The story takes place in the late 1880's in London, where Stoker describes making the acquaintance of a strange American, his participation in a secret society related to all things Egyptian, and the supernatural events that change the course of his life. Soon after the described supernatural events, the discovery of murdered prostitutes in Whitechapel begins. Stoker believes that he is the only one who understands the true nature of the murders, now known as the Jack the Ripper murders, and so is the only one who can stop them.

The style of the book, with its extensive journal entries and long letters, may be off-putting to some people since it keeps the pace more measured, instead of a fast and furious page-turner. In my opinion, the book's greatest strength is its dark, atmospheric tone and rich historical detail. The parallels between Reese's story and Stoker's Dracula are underlined. Fans of the classic vampire story and anyone interested in the Jack the Ripper mystery would probably enjoy this book. It also reminded me, in certain ways, of Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian, so I'd recommend it to fans of that book as well! ( )

The Dracula Dossier is a recreation of a portion of Brahm Stoker's life, before he began writing novels. The book does not involve Dracula, but rather is a series of notes, letters, telegrams, and a diary that Stoker kept during a period of time he was working as a general stage manager and gofer for Henry Irving (a very demanding employer). I enjoy Victorian history, and this little twisty tale, which involves the supernatural, gloomy London nights, secret meetings, is a nice twisty little read.

But, oh, the footnotes! In some cases they are entirely skippable: in others, they provide part of the story line. Some pages have a full half-page of footnotes, which truly drag the pace of reading and enjoyment down.

I did appreciate the real life Victorians included in this book, from Walt Whitman to Oscar Wilde's mom and dad, who were also both well known writers. ( )

The book isn’t about vampires. Let’s get that out of the way right now.
In 2007 an editor at William Morrow & Company received a mysterious letter claiming that amongst a lot of Bram Stoker’s papers, auctioned in 1913, was a personal journal of Stoker’s from the year 1888. This and many other bits of ephemera have been gathered and organized by the anonymous “Le Comte de Ville” into this Dracula Dossier, named after Bram Stoker’s famous novel, and heavily annotated by de Ville for the modern reader.
In the 1888 diary, Bram Stoker is utterly frustrated with his life. H is working for Henry Irving, one of the most prominent actors of his day, and trapped in a loveless marriage. (Indeed, Stoker spends the majority of the novel estranged from his son, whom he shows little affection, and his wife, whom he shows none at all.) His pen has been stilled in a creative drought. His good friend recommends a Mr. Francis Tumblety to Stoker, an acquaintance that quickly begins to sour for Stoker. It soon seems that Stoker cannot escape the man, who appears everywhere Stoker goes, a strange person selling snake oil potions and somehow charming his way into London’s literary and artistic circles. The more time he spends with Tumblety, the more Stoker suspects that there is something seriously wrong with the man, and that he is responsible for the grisly deaths of prostitutes in Whitechapel…
The absolutely brilliant aspect of this book is Reese’s writing. It also has the potential to the biggest turnoff. Reese does a wonderful job of mimicking Stoker’s gothic, verbose writing and he is truly evocative of Victorian England at the turn of the century. But I barely made it through Dracula, and a good many people are turned off that novel by Stoker’s overbearing prose. I’m not sure people will have the patience to put up with an imitation of that writing style.
I went back and forth on this. I was impressed that Reese nailed Stoker so absolutely. But the pacing of the novel is Just. So. Slow. Blood drips on the first page and then nothing happens for until well into the Second Epoch. But this is also how I remember Dracula. So I think that if you were a fan of Bram Stoker’s original novel, you’ll enjoy this potential history that led to the genesis of this novel. Jack the Ripper aficionados won’t want to miss this one, either.
I did enjoy this more than Dracula (which I would recommend reading before checking this book out; it isn’t necessary for the plot but the footnotes assume that you’ve done so and I wouldn’t want you upset by spoilers) and it’s a great homage to the great vampire book. It’s a great Victorian novel. But a modern novel for modern readers?
I’m not so sure about that. ( )

All told, the three hundred forty-five pages of this book took me somewhere around three months to read, which for me is absolutely ridiculous for any work of fiction less then about eight hundred pages.

Why? It took the bulk of the three months to get up to the plot as described on the back of the book; by somewhere close to page 140, I was just about ready to chuck it in the Unfortunately Never Finished pile, but then it suddenly got interesting. The remarkable appearance of plot had me hooked until it petered out a hundred fifty pages or so later, at which point the ending came too quickly (dare I say Mr Reese had gotten tired of it?) and I started skimming and reading the footnotes.

The fact that Reese encompassed Stoker's writing style so well was one of the high points for me in the book, along with the dry humor present in some of the footnotes. The writing captured both Stoker and the nineteenth century admirably, and that's what dragged me through the abnormally long set-up.

The back cover summary had me expecting something completely different, which was disappointing in its own way—I was hoping for something more action-oriented, and while I wasn't entirely disappointed, the story of Stoker's mental anguish as opposed to the emphasized fantasy-thriller is a very big difference; the book got no favors from the editor/publisher/whoever else might have written the summary. ( )