The idea of the vampire is fascinating, but Bram Stoker's book is not. I began reading this novel in the hopes that I might find more depth of character and plot than in the movie. But any hopes for this were demolished by the clumsy form, lack of a real narrator, and lack of character development.
At first I found the form interesting. The whole story is related through diary/journal entries by the characters, newspaper clips, telegrams, etc. Yet by the time I had read roughly 100 pages, I was growing tired of listening to the characters bubble on about their emotions, and how beautiful everyone except Dracula is.
Towards the climactic scene, the journal form begins to conflict more and more with the plot. As the actions become more time-compressed, the characters have to spend more time writing down conversations and updates to the plot. One imagines them scurrying off after anything happens to go and write it down in their diary. (I don't know anyone in real life who does this.)
Also, since he is seen through the distance of the characters' point of view, Dracula has hardly any recognizable presence in the story, except as the invisible menace. Being a boring villain, he is defeated by boring, superstitious means. What reason is there for the vampire to appear in the characters' lives anyway, unless to punish them for a wild imagination and gushing diaries?
The only character of interest is Dr. Van Helsing, especially when he speaks of an odd impulse to laughter that comes up at the most inopportune times, and when he speaks of the vampire's "child" brain.
Otherwise, the book suffers heavily from lack of a good narrator (who would perhaps scale down some of the gratuitous sentimentalism), and so I suggest watching the Francis Ford Coppolla film instead.