Talk:Dracula

Dracula's guest section

This seems a bit confusing: "a wolf then emerges through the blizzard and attacks him. However, the wolf merely keeps him warm and alive until help arrives." If the wolf does indeed attack Harker, it doesn't "merely" keep Harker warm. Attacking someone is a bit more than just keeping them warm and alive. I suggest this should be rephrased. -95.34.0.173 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

Bram Stoker's great-grand-nephew Dacre Stoker and direct-to-DVD-Slasher-film-writer Ian Holt's sequel "The Undead" is only one of many many so-called sequels to "Dracula." As Dracula is public doman, Dacre and Holt have no more claim to the title of 'actual sequal' than any other writers. I think it is wrong to include their book and no others in this article. Perhaps the best thing would be to move any mention of any so-called 'sequels' to the "Dracula in Pop Culture" article. BoosterBronze (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think at least we should move the external link for the undead site from the dracula page to the dracula undead page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.190.249 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on BACKGROUND of the novel "Dracula" doesn't need to include any refrence to a distant relative of Stoker's attempt to write a sequel a century later. It's irrelevant and gives undue weight to the otherwise hardly notable novel "Dracula The Undead." BoosterBronze (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the information that was in there saying they did so try reclaim creative control over the original character was misleading in suggesting that such a thing were possible. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Draculea

It says clearly in the "Search for Dracula" book, and in Romania, the Romanians themselves attest that the proper diminutive is Draculea and not Dracula. Dracula would be the feminine version. I know this wont change the article or suddenly cause all the books and movies to be re-written or retitled. It is a spelling error similar to the one for Aluminum Aluminium, one that caught on and now we're stuck with it. i only bring it up because it's a FACT and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Republic of Ireland in biographical section

I'm responding to a comment left by an anon editor on my talk page here. Evidently this editor is unhappy about the inclusion of the ROI in the bio box, since the ROI did not exist at the time the novel was published. Perhaps we can have a brief discussion as to how to deal with this info. I feel that the addition of this geographical detail is useful, since Stoker was born in what is now the ROI. There has been an earlier discussion here, but this didn't seem to address this specific issue. Any thoughts? Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not that am unhappy, it just seems rather historically inaccurate and the edit has been reverted twice on the grounds of concensus has been reached to the contary - that i have yet to find. Is the same been done for the countless other works that have been released in one nation that have subsequently broken away or became part of a new nation?86.4.87.120 (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dracula's Guest section 2

In reference to the current disagreement over the amendments made to the Dracula's Guest section (made by me), and in response to MarnetteD's queries, allow me to elucidate. Using "Englishman" is more correct than "Harker" because there is an age-old debate as to whether or not the character in the story IS actually Jonathan Harker. There is no conclusive answer, so using the non-specific "Englishman" is best. Using the word "vampiress" is not essential, but it is a term used freely in the Gothic/horror genre nowadays and I thought it was appropriate where I used it. However, the most important amendment I made was regarding the apparition of the wolf to the Englishman in the wilderness. The former description was unspecific and somewhat inaccurate (the wolf did not "emerge through the blizzard" nor "attack" the Englishman). My amendment improved the accuracy of the description significantly, though I too made a minor error (describing the Englishman as being forced to sleep in the forest for the night, which now seems a slight exaggeration, as it was a brief period of unconsciousness lol.) However, I shall see to correcting this directly. 81.178.250.247 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up "The Englishman" usage. However, vampiress was not used in the story and is not widely used in the numerous vampire tales being produced today. MarnetteD | Talk 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are users here who feel that the Dracula's Guest section is written in a "clunky" way (I felt it rude to say, but I thought the section was rather clumsily written when I first read it), then by all means do your best to de-clunkify it with your masterly skills in writing prose. But please do not simply revert it to a former version that contains inaccurate and missing details when I have made the effort to research and amend them. 81.178.250.247 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As the contributor who reverted your edit, I'd like to explain why I did so. For some reason this entry is quite prone to vandalism or haphazard additions especially by anon IPs. I do appreciate that you want to add some more (although minor) detail here, so I'd suggest that you use a user name in the future, which could help elicit a more meaningful dialogue. Having said this, I stand by my statement that your edits are poorly worded: for example, "he is dragged away by an unseen force and rendered unconscious" has several problems both in style and content. To "render unconscious" needs an active subject doing the rendering (if you insist on this phrasing) and "unseen force" begs the question, by whom this force is unseen? The Englishman, the reader, another party present, but not mentioned? This doesn't call for any masterly prose, but for plain English. Since it's been a good while since I read this short novel, I cannot check the accuracy of the content, but I do feel that this section does not read well. Given that it only adds some very minor details, I therefore have reservations to leave it in this way. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not writing a best-selling novel here, but a concise synopsis of a short story in encyclopedic format. Therefore, issues such as "active subjects" and to whom the force is "unseen" seem quite pedantic and ultimately inconsequential. (By the way, isn't it obvious that the force is unseen by the character in the story? Realistically who else would it be referring to? And who is seriously going to scrutinise this in a synopsis anyway?) 217.206.76.157 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Malljaja, whilst I agree with you that the section doesn't read like Shakespeare, I think it remarkable that you find my edits alone to be below par and presumably the crux of what's wrong with the section. Other parts of the section read far worse than mine. For example, "The short story climaxes in an old graveyard, where in a marble tomb (with a large iron stake driven into it), the Englishman encounters..." is a glaring mess of sentence structure that seems to have escaped your critical eye (it should read "where the Englishman encounters (the vampiress) in a marble tomb, etc"). Another would be "This malevolent and beautiful vampire awakens from her marble bier to conjure a snowstorm before being struck by lightning and returning to her eternal prison..." which is far too much information crammed into one sentence. Having re-read the sentence that most displeases you, "the Englishman's troubles are not quite over, as he is dragged away by an unseen force and rendered unconscious...", I do feel that your first concern about the absence of an active subject doing the "rendering" is pedantic - one might even say the absence of a subject is appropriately vague, because the moment in the short story is similarly vague and unclear, as we don't know who or what it is that has dragged the Englishman away and rendered him unconscious. Secondly, Bram Stoker's writing seems to imply that the "unseen force" is invisible to all, so that neither the Englishman, the reader, nor any voyeurs present at the scene would perceive it. I thought this was perfectly clear when I re-read the sentence I wrote, but if users want greater specification, they can always proceed to the Dracula's Guest article, which provides far more in-depth details. I encourage you to have a go at improving the style and content of the section if you wish, but I might suggest re-reading Dracula's Guest first so that you can accurately identify where the problems lie. Thank you. 81.178.253.108 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Because edit summaries are limited let me post here. I archived a large chunk of conversations, some that went as far back as 07, today. I know that there is a way to archive into the talkheader but I have never known how to do this. Thus, I added an archive box template - to be honest I actually prefer these because the archive in the talkheader can be missed with all of the other info that is there. If any of you don't like this and want to move archive #2 into the talkheader please feel free to do so. My second thought was "Do we want to set up a bot to arc--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)hive this page automatically?" That would prevent having as many stale conversations on the page as I found today. I have never worked with these bots so if consensus is to use a bot please set this up with my thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. To archive, you have to create a separate page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JayJasper. Did you have any thoughts about bot archiving? If not no worries and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, glad to be of assistance. As for bot archiving, that might not be a bad idea, given that there were threads dating as far back as '07 that weren't archived until today.--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Films that "include a reference"

I removed the following bit:

The number of films that include a reference to Dracula may reach as high as 649, according to the Internet Movie Database.

I have no idea what "include a reference" is supposed to mean exactly, and the passage doesn't tell me. Is it including Dracula as a character? Or just mentioning Dracula off-hand? Is it something else? This isn't very useful as is. Ekwos (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal. There will be some more coherent discussion of the number of dracula movies somewhere in some authoritative book on horror cinema. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with its removal. Not all films involving vampires refer to Dracula and there is a distinct possibility that the number in the old info might include some of these. Thanks for the removal and for the clarifying post here. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

Poorly written. The verb tenses jump everywhere and the overall summary doesn't flow well. 76.10.151.90 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is unlocked. I'll look into it, but you can fix it, too. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Vampire Princess

I believe it is a relevant subject, the Smithsonian Channel is not the History Channel, there is no reason to assume because it's a television channel that it can't be historically accurate as it draws it's finding directly from the museum it is named after. 97.82.229.243 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What we need is other scholars to comment on this persons theory. Anyone can get a theory published or on a documentary. It remains speculation until other scholars comment on its viability. BTW as more than one editor has removed this you will want to read WP:CONSENSUS. At the moment it comes down on the side of not having this new theory in the article at this time. Please do not reinsert it until that consensus changes. MarnetteD | Talk 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dracula's Guest

I am a high school student who has analyzed this story and Dracula's Guest in great depth. With many other English professors, I have concluded that the "Englishman" in Dracula's Guest is not Jonathan Harker, but Renfield. Renfield was the original lawyer for Dracula sent by Mr. Hawkins. But because Renfield went mad after realizing the power of Dracula, Mr. Hawkins sends Harker to do the job that Renfield assigned. I wish that an administrator edits the section about Dracula's Guest and cites my influence in the decision. 14:16 December 15,2012 (EST)

Rename article to "Dracula (novel)"

It occurs to me that people searching for "Dracula" are more likely to be interested in the character Count Dracula, than the novel. I propose changing the title of this article to "Dracula (novel)", and having "Dracula" redirect to either the aforementioned Count Dracula, or the Dracula disambiguation page.

Thoughts?

- Hatster301 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense, and I support your suggestion. I'd wait a few more days before renaming the entry to offer time for others to weigh in as well. Malljaja (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I disagree with a page move. The book is quite clearly the main subject. Also we have a hatnote right at the top of the page so that those who are looking for the character can get to that article with a simple click of their mouse. Hatster I would suggest that you file a full WP:RFC and/or a Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more input. You might also alert the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels as well. Malljaja it is always good to see your name on my watchlist and I appreciate all you do in taking care of this article. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Marnette, many thanks for your kind words and right back'atcha—your help with the article has been invaluable. Though I'd still prefer a change in subject title to the current hatnote. Your idea to open an RFC is a good one and we shall see what others' views on this subject are. Best, Malljaja (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Prefer to leave as is since the character derives from the novel, and the novel is a canonical work. --Mervyn (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Prefer to leave it as is, as per Mervyn and MarnetteD. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal in theory, but I don't think that Count Dracula should be moved here. Rather, Dracula (disambiguation) should be moved here. While the character may be the single-best-known, as a character in a novel who is probably better-known through one or more of the novel's film adaptations, and also based on a real historical figure who actually had this name, he should still not be treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of "if it ain't broke". Nothing needs to be moved as the book is the primary topic. Film adaptations and the 1000's of other vampires stories since don't exist without it and the historical person was never called Dracula. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You wanna fix the Vlad the Impaler article where it says "also known by his patronymic name: Dracula", then? I was under the impression that the name of the character and the novel both came from the alternate name of the historical Vlad the Impaler. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies Elevenscout. I was going on the info in this article stating "The name Dracula was the patronym (Drăculea) of the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia, who took the name "Dracul" after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431." 1) Since it says "descendents" I interpret that to mean that the name was used by those who came after Vlad 2) I have always read that the name "Dracul" was used in Wallachia and that English historians/writers added the "a". In any case that doesn't change my opinion of the page not needing to be moved. The Op does not seem to have picked up on my suggestion of an RFC. If you or anyone else wants to get wider input I will be fine with whatever the consensus winds up being. Again apologies for any offense my curtness caused. MarnetteD | Talk 06:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Hey, I'm an editing n00b, so I'm not sure about this, but the introduction (short of the word "gothic") is word-for-word taken from the publisher's description given on this amazon page. Is this Kosher? Seems like plagiarism. Hyathin (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Amazon summary was published on December 21, 2011, while it looks like the lead has been the same since before that time. I'd say Amazon is the one that did the copying. But thanks for pointing this out anyway, plagiarism is a problem in articles sometimes. (People still copy summaries from SparkNotes. [Shivers]) TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The intro on this article has been here far longer then the item on Amazon. It is far more likely that the item at Amazon copied Wikipedia. This happens quote often but other sites usually acknowledge that they are mirroring WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

Please change "Dracula has been assigned to many literary genres including..." to "Dracula has been assigned too many literary genres including..." in the first sentence of the second paragraph. (Typo) Folkspeak (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The grammar is actually correct. Thanks, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not sure why the History Channel reference was removed, but clear advertising for an equally questionable book remains - and under its own section title no less! Does the author hold some kind of sway over the editing of this article? 99.239.72.120 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)