Proposed discussion regarding something from Lizzy's post

Would it be safe to say that Salem's Lot would be appreciated MORE if the reader had read Dracula first? I'm not necessarily saying that's true, especially since most people know at least a fraction of vampire folklore, but since this book was written mainly because King was such a fan of Stoker, should this book be considered as a complimentary or supplimentary work of the original work it's loosely related to?

Thoughts?