I am, however, conflicted about the characters. On the one hand, they’re quite nice to read: upstanding, brave, loving men, and clever, courageous women. Dracula’s evil is quite chilling. But they’re also only one-sided. There’s no depth and no contrast to them. Either they’re fully good – all of the good guys – or they’re fully bad: Dracula and his brides. The one character with ambiguity and shade is madman Renfield; he’s rather fascinating, and I think that Stoker enjoyed writing him. I also got a little annoyed by the way Van Helsing speaks. At first it was quite nice because that is how many Dutch people speak English (I grew up with lots of them, being of Dutch extraction myself), but would all three journal writers (Mina, Johnathan and Dr Seward) really have taken down his words exactly as he said them, complete with the errors non-native speakers make? That doesn’t feel realistic.

It can be difficult to get into a story that is told through letters, journal entries and the like, but I think Dracula is worth it. It’s a mystery and a jigsaw, and as the pieces fit together the cleverness of Stoker’s writing becomes evident. And it bears up well under a reread. This time around I found different scenes scary, and was struck by the way Stoker wrote Mina & Jonathan’s love story. (Yes, I’m a sap.) And I’m glad I reread, because I had fogotten some of the vampire characteristics Stoker used. There are almost all of the ones we are still familiar with: no reflection in the mirror, ability to turn into a bat, the nocturnal hours of activity. But Stoker’s vampires can go out in the sunlight. Their only limitation in daylight hours is that they cannot change shape. They are also unable to cross water except at low tide, and they are also able to turn into mist and control the elements to an extent. Stoker’s vampires are more powerful than those in modern literature.

I love this book. It’s scary, it’s moving, it’s well-written, and it’s fascinating glimpse into scientific thought of the 19th century. Physiognomy and phrenology were huge in this era, and they play a large part in the sketching of various characters, as does the rapidly developing discipline of psychology. Interesting too are the references to the new technologies of the age: typewriters (that surprised me), phonographs and the like. Published in 1897, Dracula is a fin de siècle novel; that is, an end of the century book, and it certainly has that feel. The new technologies, new scientific though and advancement, and the uneasiness of the Victorians in their wider world all contribute to the mood of the novel: it is a time of change, where society’s balance can be overturned by the smallest of events. Dracula himself is a symbol of this threat. Understanding this context is key, I think, to enjoyment of the book, especially given the number of adaptations over the years. But Dracula remains for me the best, scariest imagining of the vampire, and it’s a book I will reread many times.