Bram Stoker's Dracula would and always will be the canon version of Dracula. For anything to be a canon version of Dracula, it cannot deviate from what's established in the novel. If a Dracula version goes off on its own and establishes its own rules and stories, it becomes its own entity entirely. A completely separate canon would be established for the one that goes off on its own, and hopefully any subsequent stories that claim to be within that version will then follow the new canon which was established in the deviating version. This is how I look at the different versions of DS. For example, the original show, the '70s movies, the '91 DS, and the Depp/DS film all have their own separate canons. All of those versions subsequent to the original do not fit within the canon of the original - and that's all perfectly fine with me because they're DS entities unto themselves. However, where I have a problem is when subsequent versions claim they do indeed fit within the original show's canon and they're a continuation of that canon, yet they make significant enough changes that make it impossible for them to actually fit within the original show's canon. Such an example is Lara Parker's Angelique's Descent. As I've lamented ad nauseum (so I'll try to keep things as brief as possible this time around), it was originally released with the promise that it fit completely within the original show - going so far as to recreate established 1795/96 scenes word for word. However, once it inserted its own dialogue into a scene that aired as part of the show, dialogue that instantly changed the entire thrust of that established scene, there's no denying that it totally broke from the canon of the original show and went off on its own. And that would have been perfectly fine had there not been claims that the novel fit completely within the original show. But due to the changes, any claims that that novel could possibly be original show canon are completely and utterly erroneous.