The New Annotated Dracula

This book was, tbh, a lot more fun and less gross than I was expecting it to be.–OK I wanted to re-read Dracula after reading [b:Powers of Darkness: The Lost Version of Dracula 29075452 Powers of Darkness The Lost Version of Dracula Valdimar Ásmundsson https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1482530460l/29075452.SX50.jpg 49306070], and I thought it would be fun to get the giant annotated edition (which btw I did NOT previously read the annotated edition but it was easier to just merge these 2 reviews into this edition). But like some of these annotations were...too much for me. And like Leslie Klinger made the note that he was making the choice to leave annotations as if Dracula were a work of nonfiction and he was fact checking real people and so he would talk about like, “Jonathan must have made an error in dating his journal bc he was tired that night, blah blah blah” and I was like.....?! anyway like maybe 30% of annotations were interesting things that defined old slang words or added context. And like 30% were trying to figure out exact geography of the events of the book, which I didn't really care about tbh. And then like 40% of them were WILD nitpicks that were in character trying to call out fictional characters on their inconsistencies rather than being like “oh Bram Stoker did a whoopsie”?? it was so weird. Anyway I ended up skimming past most of those footnotes but it took awhile to get used to that effect.I would recommend reading like, a normal-ass edition of Dracula. Or just Dracula Daily.