This book, which is apparently already a bestseller, about a daughter's discovery of an ongoing search into the true history of Vlad Tepes, the historical Dracula. Bottom line is that Stoker got it right - the historical Dracula did become a vampire after his death, and is still around, and is looking for something (and it isn't just blood).
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It's very well written, and the author's descriptions of Eastern Europe really make you want to travel there to see the sights she describes. It is a notable addition to the Dracula canon - an original story that is well-told - and my favorite thing about it is that it doesn't romanticize Dracula (or, more properly, Drakulya). He is a brutal figure, and when he finally does appear, he is treated as what he is, an unhuman, undead thing. He has the power to kill and to attract, but he doesn't inspire love or pity, only fear and horror. In short, the kind of Dracula I like. Well, that's my second-favorite thing. My favorite thing is the way it follows the flashback/journal style of Stoker's original, or Anne Rice's early vampire/witch books. I just love it when people are reading old journals that fill in the gaps in the story.
Anyway, really good book. Stay tuned for the movie - if they're making one of The DaVinci Code, they HAVE to make one of this one.
Update: Just read the New York Times' review of this book. While the reviewer doesn't liek it as much as I did, the things he does like are the same, and the thing he doesn't like - the serious preoccupation with history, I do like. And it's a good summary of the plot and gives a better flavor of the subject matter than I have done. It's at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/books/review/10ALFORDT.html?adxnnl=1&8bu=&emc=bu&adxnnlx=1121004438-GXnoz7vlMuT1A0XyApfhjw
Also just discovered a short video of the authorexplaining the book that's very interesting - http://www.meettheauthor.com/bookbites/599.html