3 1/2 stars Sometimes the narrator really does add to the whole. ( )

no star rating on this one either. i’m sorting through my shelves and trying to get a feel for what i will and won’t read. i enjoyed the first few books in this series and the sherlock holmes crossovers and saberhagen’s prose is amazing but i can just /tell/ i’m not going to enjoy this one.

Fun, as usual for Saberhagen. I do enjoy his writing style.

Not as good as previous outings. You do get more about Drac's mortal life, before the change, which is neat, because the story is (kind of) split into two: Drac's mortal life, 500 years ago, and the problems of mortals, today (with Drac involved). But the modern story was... weak. And the story twist, at the end, was definitely not satisfying.

But I will read more. Definitely. ( )

The weakest of the first five books, despite having a cameo by Leonardo di Vinci. Dracula as a film noir detective looking for a painting he owned hundreds of years ago. The bodies soon pile up, but the final confrontation is hardly much of a contest for Dracula. ( )

I rereading this, again. It's 4th in the series & you should read book 3, if no others in the series first. It's not at all like the vampire romances so popular today. More of a modern day take on Stoker's work.Dracula himself is Thorn, the writer of the book. He's involved in a modern (1970 or so) murder story, chasing after a painting that he rightfully owns, but hasn't had in his possession for about 500 years. The story line flips back & forth between the present & the story revolving around the creation & his ownership of the painting 500 years ago. The history he provides is accurate, so far as I can tell from a little research. The dates, people & places are correct. As for the actual events, motivations & such, well it is fiction - well done fiction. It's probably my favorite of his Dracula series & was the first one I read. It's not really a classic, but almost. ( )