Do you think Francis J. Tumblety was really Jack the Ripper?

It may seem strange, but I don't really have an opinion on the matter. My point in writing THE DRACULA DOSSIER was to explore the life of Bram Stoker, and the creative process. I did not set out write an indictment of Tumblety, though it seems to me one could do so, though I think it best if I leave all that to the Ripperologists. However, anyone interested in "pursuing" Tumblety as the Ripper—and he is, in fact, today's prime suspect—is advised to start at www.casebook.org. It's a great website, and one that leads to the seemingly infinite amount of published material on Jack the Ripper.

You often incorporate historical figures in your work. How is that different from creating a purely fictional character?

I think there is an added level of responsibility when you incorporate historical figures into your fiction. Before I added Edgar Allan Poe to THE BOOK OF SPIRITS, for example, I read a great deal of Poe, particularly those writings of his referred to as the "marginalia," especially that which was written when the "real" Poe was the age of "my" Poe. In that way, I sort of built a vocabulary for my character; and in fact a significant percentage of what Poe says in SPIRITS are his actual words.

In THE DRACULA DOSSIER I gave myself the burden of many historical figures, from Stoker to Whitman to Lady Wilde. In doing so, I used the same method as in SPIRITS: some of what Stoker "says" is verbatim from either his own fiction or non-fiction. It was fun, too, to attribute some of Oscar Wilde's wit—culled from his plays—to his mother, though certainly Speranza did not want for wit herself.

In short, added difficulties and responsibilities accrue when you write so much history—and biography—into your fiction, but I enjoy it. And I also think it deepens the experience for the reader. That said, I understand that some readers feel a need to know what is truth, as opposed to fiction. In answer to their question, "How much of the book's history is true?" I can answer, "Most, indeed nearly all of it." For specifics, see the Author's Note at the back of the book or here, under Behind the Book.

What was the most significant thing you learned about Bram Stoker in writing THE DRACULA DOSSIER?

I hadn't realized how deeply involved Stoker was in the life of his boss, Sir Henry Irving. I'd known Stoker was involved in the theatre, but I had no idea how deeply involved he was with Irving and the Lyceum Company. Nor did I understand how famous Irving was—through him, Stoker met many of the most famous people of his day. Ironically, today we remember Bram Stoker and not Henry Irving. Ditto Stoker's friend, Hall Caine: his renown far, far outstripped Stoker's in their day, but certainly not in ours.

Also, the single most interesting factoid about Stoker was this: We owe the fact that plays are reviewed right away, on opening night, to Stoker. Prior to his filing reviews for Dublin's Daily Mail, reviews might appear days after an opening night; and needless to say, that didn't exactly help business in the theatres.

Which historical character captivated you the most?

Stoker, obviously. But as I researched the book, I fell in love with Lady Jane Wilde. "Larger than life" seems an apt description of Speranza, in every way. A giantess and a genius. I thought her "daily struggle for bread" late in life was poignant, as was her adoration of her husband (and her accommodation of his philandering). Mostly, though, I thought her end was heartbreaking. To have to watch the public humiliation, and punishment, of her son—whom she rightly regarded as a genius—was, literally, heartbreaking, and more than she could bear.

Do you know that there is in fact a gravesite for Lady Jane Wilde?

So I've been told. That's great. I'm glad to hear it, truly. Sad, though, that it was such a long time coming. And yes, no doubt I should have double-checked with more modern sources before stating otherwise in my novel—though learning of a gravesite would have had no bearing on THE DRACULA DOSSIER, of course. That's the risk—or benefit—of writing historical fiction: Sometimes you're more present in the past than in the present!

Have you visited the places you write about in THE DRACULA DOSSIER?

Because I write historical fiction, it's often besides the point for me to try to visit the places I am writing about, or the settings of the novels—they no longer exist! I've been to several places I've then written about and it was no help at all. I spend so much time trying to see the locations without cars speeding by, without power lines in the distance, without radios blaring, …

On the other hand, a hugely helpful resource when I was researching the early nineteenth century for the Herculine books were contemporary travel guides. In the pre-photographic era, the writers of such guides had to be quite descriptive. Those guides are a treasure trove for today's researchers.

Now, to answer the question: Yes, I have been to most—not all—of the settings in THE DRACULA DOSSIER. I visited Stoker's homes in Chelsea, and though I did not tour the Lyceum Theatre, I did tour the nearby Drury Lane. Of course, I took the requisite Jack the Ripper tour while in London, but that's not much help to the modern-day Ripperologist: nearly all the sites of old Whitechapel relevant to the murders are gone. And yes, I've been to Edinburgh, to the cities both below and above the streets. It's a place I'd highly recommend to any traveler with a taste for the macabre.

Can you comment on the parallel structures of the two books?

I cannot start writing a book until I have a good sense of its structure—the number of parts, or chapters, whether or not it will have a prologue and/or epilogue. And shortly after I conceived of THE DRACULA DOSSIER, I returned to Stoker's novel and realized that my novel would share that structure. Which is to say, a journal-like compilation of newspaper clippings, letters, telegrams, etc.

And I saw too that my novel would have an end-note, or epilogue, similar to Stoker's. In the case of Dracula, that's an end-note written seven years after the present action of the novel. In THE DRACULA DOSSIER, I have Stoker return to his own journal to add a note seven years later as well. That allowed me to comment on the fate of my characters without compromising the history or biographies that factor in the novel. Seven years after the Ripper murders, Irving and Thornley Stoker were in fact knighted on the same day that Oscar Wilde was convicted and sentenced to jail in what was, essentially, a death sentence for both he and his mother. That structure—the "seven year note"—ties up both novels nicely, I think.

What prompted you to use Egyptology as a plot point?

I've always had an interest in Egyptology, ever since I was very, very young. When I learned that it was a passion of both Sir William Wilde and Stoker—and a lynchpin of the practices of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn—I knew it had to factor in the novel.

How true is the novel to the rituals and rites of the Golden Dawn?

Very. But I have to add, I did not come anywhere near to mining the depths of the Order's rituals. Here on my desk sits a densely-packed, 800 page "manual" by Israel Regardie. It makes for amazing reading, but, in truth, all I did was skim the manual for rituals and rites which would serve my purposes in writing the novel. That said, what I used is based on the Order's actual practices, though I edited and rearranged the rituals and rites somewhat—a fact which I'm sure will not endear me to any of the Order's current practitioners.

Is the relationship between Yeats and Stoker a true one?

Absolutely. They were a generation apart, and Stoker knew the father at Trinity. And yes, the father—Jack Butler Yeats—brought his son, "Billyum," to the Lyceum when he was a teen to see Irving and Terry onstage. In the novel, Stoker has not seen the younger Yeats since then when he meets him at Lady Wilde's conversazione.

And yes, Yeats was involved with the Golden Dawn, more so than any other character in the novel. (However, the date of his joining the order is uncertain.) In fact, as I write there is a show about Yeats at the National Library of Ireland and its online site is amazing. If you follow the link below, it will lead you to a sort of e-bookshelf where you can click on a collection of Golden Dawn notebooks kept by Yeats and some contemporaries. They're fascination, and will give you an idea of what Stoker's "actual" journal may have looked like.

http://www.nli.ie/yeats/main.html