Jump to content

Talk:Dracula/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Dracula's Death

There is a mistake here stating Dracula died by being stabbed by a Bowie knife. I checked copy of the book and while Quency Morris did stab Dracula in the heart with the Bowie at the same time Jonathan Harker decapitated Dracula with a Kukri knife. I'm pretty sure it's meant that the decapitation killed the count not the stabbing--Matthew Ilseman--Mornatur Ormacil 14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Seems like the author of this and some other paragraphs (like that of the "Strange Wolf") based his or her synopsis on the Coppola's movie.--Mornatur 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

Shouldn't there be more historical context information in the analysis section, especially about victorian gender roles and the "new woman" concept? I also think it reads rather clumsily to include elements of vampiric lore in the analysis. There should be a separate section for that. Laurencooper 11:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello? "a secret fraternal order of knights called the Order of the Dragon, founded by King Sigismund of Hungary (who became the Holy Roman Emperor in 1410) to uphold Christianity and defend the Empire against the Ottoman Turks"?

Call me a running dog lackey of the evil rationalist zombies, but whenever I see something like this my Conspiracy theory alert goes off. Anybody have anything to back this up?

(I'm not calling anybody names here, I just want to know where this came from.)

The Order of the Dragon is an historical fact and can be defined with the lines above, yet it's not been clearly demonstrated the link between the Basarab (Dracula) family and such an order. An alternate theory on the Dracul name goes to the lingustic matter, and proposes "Dracul" or "Dracula" as a synonym to "Devil"--Mornatur 16:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had time, I'd want to compare this article to [1] and other sources. --LMS

Thanks, Larry. Page says that the info there "was taken from The Vampire Book, The Encyclopedia of the Undead by J. Gordon Melton""

"Dracula is the most famous (fictional, or mythical) vampire."

This would be as opposed to "real, non-mythical" vampire?

Well, we don't want five-year-olds reading this and finding out that, according to the encyclopedia, it seems that Dracula actually exists or existed! :-) I'm not sure how best to word this. --LMS
This would probably be as opposed to real, non-mythical vampyres: People who believe their bodies are inhabited by the spirits of vampires, people who practice vampyrism or believe they have vampiric psi-talents, etc. Basically, all those people who are real and non-mythical and who self-identify as vampires/vampyres or are identified by others as being individuals whose lifestyles are considered inspiration for vampire myths (Dutchess of Bathory, The Impaler, etc.). People who suffer from Renfield's syndrome. Could also be as opposed to Vampyroteuthis infernalis, the vampire bat, the mosquito, the tick, the leach, the lawyer, etc. Who knows? Lots of things could fall into the category of "real, non-mythical" vampires. --Þorstejnn 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. :-)

But Carmilla is definitely the most interesting... sjc

There is no evidence that Stoker ever read anything about Vlad Drakul/Vlad the Impaler while doing research for his book. See "Dracula: Sense and Nonsense" by Elizabeth Miller. --corvus13

Oh dear, Elizabeth Miller really does have you wound up, doesn't she? Her viewpoint is kind of unique amongst scholars.... It is just a theory; there are many other arguments against her point of view. There are 3 threads to the source of Dracula: 1. Irish folk-myth (some of the Sidhe were thought to drink human blood; 2. Carmilla by Sheridan le Fanu and 3. (and problematically from Ms Miller's viewpoint) Vlad Tepes. 1 and 2 are not disputed by Ms Miller. Her argument definitely substantiates Carmilla as a source. But. Her arguments are based upon a number of assumptions, and while they are intellectually coherent, many of them are circumstantial. We will never know for sure. sjc

It would be interesting to lok out for some info on Abhartach, a celtic chieftain accused of wizardry and vampirism in his time. It's possible that Stoker have taken some data on him to buil his count. Yet, the novel seems to be less or more well documented about Tepes's life.--Mornatur 16:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"A huge dog or wolf is seen running from the ship, " To note: the novel says only about a "huge dog"

The strange wolf

"Lucy's mother is killed by a strange wolf and Lucy becomes pale and distrait. The Dutch vampire expert, Professor Van Helsing, is brought in and determines that Lucy's mother was killed by a werewolf and that Lucy is dying. "

Um, it's a while since I read the book, but isn't the wolf actually Drac in another form (as shown in the Buffy episode)? Hence not a werewolf.

There's a comment in the source of the page, reading
The wolf is a real wolf, which Dracula breaks out of London Zoo for backup; the narrative includes a press clipping about the wolf's mysterious escape and subsequent return. Is this worth mentioning in the plot summary?
I've left the comment there, and added "See Talk: page", as I interpreted the clipping as being the press 'explaining' the presence of a strange wolf, rather than as an actual explanation for it. — OwenBlacker 22:29, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
That was me - and I stand by that interpretation, which I made having just re-read the book. The press clipping isn't about "the presence of strange wolf", it's about the mysterious disappearance and subsequent reappearance of an actual wolf of known provenance which had been at the zoo for years. It doesn't even mention the incident at Lucy's house. --Paul A 09:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One reason for mentioning the clipping is that it is an example of the multi-media nature of the novel, as discussed in the opening paragraph. Ortolan88 00:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've re-read the novel recently, and there are several interesting facts about all of this discussion:
First, there were always the possibility of the wolf being Dracula himself, for he demonstrated the power of transforming into several types of creatures during the novel; as in the arrival of the Persefone.
Second, the news clipping actually doesn't mention the incident at Lucy's house, BUT it mentions the beast as being hurt in the face. The zoo guy even rants about the glasses on top of walls when he see the hurts on the wolf's head. This is consistent with the fact that the wolf entered Lucy's room by breaking the window and thus allowing the Count to get in and finish his dirty, yet delicious, job. --Mornatur 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Saberhagen

Should this page mention the series of books by Fred Saberhagen told from Dracula's point of view? The Dracula Tape is a re-telling of the original book by Dracula himself, taking a predictably dim view of Van Helsing's MO. There are several more, including one with Sherlock Holmes as Dracula's nephew (explaining the remarkable physical resemblance between the two characters :-). --Phil 11:01, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

It does now. (Reminiscence: I once saw the first two books in the series published in an omnibus edition under the title Vlad Tapes. Ouch.) —Paul A 09:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New image

I've just uploaded Image:DraculaLugosi1931Poster.jpg, but I've not added it to the article, as I don't know the copyright status. I would assume that a 1931 film poster is now PD, but amn't sure how best to check... OwenBlacker

At least in the U.S., something from 1931 would not be public domain, but a small image of a movie poster in a relavant context would almost certainly be fair use. -- Jmabel 17:53, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
In that case I'll add it…  :o) — OwenBlacker 11:49, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Separate book from icon

Compare this page to superman. In this case I think separating out Dracula (about the character, its history, the current meme and its many offspring in literature and otherwise; with a brief summary of the various tales of Dracula's life) from Dracula (book) (with detail on Stoker's novel, a more fully spoilered plot synopsis, and analysis of the text). The many paragraphs of textual and character analysis are out of step with an article giving an overview of what modern audiences (who have yet to read the original novel) think of when they hear "Dracula". For that article, perhaps a movie poster picture of a black-and-white dracule about to sahck someone's blahd? +sj+ 04:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More details on modern versions of the story

A mini-list from a quick google:

Dracula: Prince of Many Faces: His Life and Times by Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally is a chilling biography of Vlad Dracula. (UK)

In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires, also by Raymond T. McNally and Radu Florescu. This book explains the connections between the real Dracula and Bram Stoker's fictional vampire. (UK)

Vlad the Impaler: In Search of the Real Dracula by M. J. Trow. Was Dracula a heroic freedom fighter or a bloodthirsty mass-murderer? This biography peels back the layers of myth and history to reveal the the real Vlad the Impaler. (UK)

Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula by Kurt W. Treptow. A scholarly biography. (UK)

Dracula: Sense and Nonsense by Elizabeth Miller. The author, an expert on Bram Stoker's novel, believes Stoker did not base his Dracula character on Vlad the Impaler. (UK) Other Novels

Dracula, the Son of the Dragon by Neal John Iacono. A novel about Vlad the Impaler. (UK)

Covenant With the Vampire: The Diaries of the Family Dracul by Jeanne Kalogridis. The first in a trilogy of novels about a fictional descendant of the real Prince Dracula who uncovers the secrets of his family's past.

Children of the Vampire: The Diaries of the Family Dracul by Jeanne Kalogridis is the sequel to Covenant With the Vampire. Dracula's descendant continues his battle with his evil ancestor.

Lord of the Vampires is the final book in Jeanne Kalogridis's Diaries of the Family Dracul trilogy.

Vlad Dracula: The Dragon Prince by Michael Augustyn is a novel about the real Dracula. Out of print, but may be available.

Vlad by Melodie Romeo. Another fictionalized account of the real Vlad Dracula's life. (UK)

Love story?!?

I'd really like to know how the original novel Dracula became so much a "love story" that the claim was worth making in the first paragraph. While Bram Stoker's Dracula portrayed Dracula's pursuit of Mina as a love story, this is clearly revisionism and not what Stoker intended, and the relationships between the human characters really don't justify the classification of the book as a "love story". -- Antaeus Feldspar

I concur, Antaeus. —Stormie 00:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think it might be too complicated to put in the article, but I'm guessing that someone was trying to get at the idea of romanticism, of which the novel is certainly representative, and got confused between romanticism and the eroticism of the Count's relationhip with the women, and came up with "love story". Ortolan88 00:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Prehistoric Origins

In an early issue of OMNI magazine (now that takes me back more than a few years) there was an interesting speculation that the Dracula Myth might go back to prehistoric man. I don't have the original article, nor do I remember all of it (which is why this belongs here on the discussion page and not edited into the article). But the main point went something like this. When our ancestors were living in caves some might have strayed so far into them that they might have been bitten by bats, either when awake or asleep. This might have led to the onset of rabies, symptons of which can include an aversion to light and water. The madness that can follow might cause such problems in the tribe that killing the person might be the only way to protect the rest. Of course, this could all be terrible codswollop (or batswollop if you prefer). I wanted to post it as food for thought for Dracula fans and just in case it puts me in contact with someone who hung on to their copies of OMNI and can let me see the article again. MarnetteD | Talk 19:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

fictional character VS book title

sorry if that has come up already, but I looked for the book "Dracula" and the first definition was: "Dracula is a fictional character" - wouldn't it be better to put something like "Dracula is both a novel and its eponymous antagonist"? (clem 19:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC))

pop culture references

somebody should mention the simpsons episode that parodied bram stoker's dracula from season 5. where mr. burns is dracula.

Influences

It may be important to put moree influences on the story. Here is and *example. Stoker got his ideas from a lot of places, not just a few.


Broadway Muscial

Was Dracula: The Musical, which was on Broadway earlier this year, mentioned in the article? Link: http://frankwildhorn.com/projects/dracula/ --Kindeditor 16:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Separating Book from Character

Shouldn't there be a page dedicated to the character of Dracula himself, perhaps listing differences between his various incarnations?

The image of the Dracula postage stamp appears to violate the conditions of fair use that are claimed on the image page:

It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp) … qualifies as fair use

BrainyBroad 21:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Arminus Vambery

I am fairly sure Professor Van Helsin makes a reference to Arminus Vambery at some point in the novel. If so, then there is some evidence of Stoker and Vambery knowing of one another and possibly communicating. Does anybody else know? -- Pejhman 23:27, 07 January 2006 (AEDT)

Most accurate movie

According to Leonard Wolf a published expert on Dracula (who wrote "The Essential Dracula"), the most faithful reproduction was a BBC mini-series (I'd have to look up which) -- I think we should not be overly definitive about one movie or another being the most accurate. --Stbalbach 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Wolf is referring to the 1977 production titled Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan in the title role. It also starred Frank Finlay as Van Helsing and Judi Bowker as Mina. Although not a miniseries it was two and a half hours long and covered virtually all of the book. It includes all of the main characters with the exception of blending Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris. It includes scenes filmed in the town of Whitby and we see characters recording events in their diaries, letters and dictaphones much like the way the book is written. In particular the character of Renfield is very close to the way that he is portrayed by Stoker. Some viewers decry its special effects but if you take into account the state of BBC TV F/X of the time they are actually fairly effective (for me anyway). I have read at IMDb that it is available on DVD from ebay, although some postings on their message board say that the quality is so so. Here in the US it was an annual Halloween broadcast on PBS for a few years in the 1980's. My VHS copy of it is starting to show it's age a bit. I agree with your statement about easing the rhetoric about which versions are the most faithful and I will try to help in keeping an eye on this page. User:MarnetteD | Talk 17:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Daylight Analysis

the Analysis section includes a mention that in Nosferatu was the first mention of daylight being fatal to the Vampire, and that in Dracula , the Count is able to move around by daylight. Would somebody point me to where this happens? Becaus I feel it's wrong.

My memory tells me of Harker meeting the Count only by night... and of the Vampire having to be carried in his earth boxes on the ship, presumably going out at night to feed, since the ship was mysteriously found devoid of life, and at the end, he's not moving under his own power but carried in a coffin by his gipsy servants. This goes well with the traditional view that, by day, the vampire must lie down in a torpor, and may not act (or he might have been able to defend himself at the very end... (he was looking exultand, gloating at the fact that the sun's disappearance would leave him free to act).

Now, the novel is thick and I may not remember or never have noticed key passages. Just where in that book is the count active by day? --Svartalf 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read it and the count is active by day throughout the entire novel. It is only by night that vampires transform into another creature or take ethereal form. Stoker had a lot of inconsistencies in the novel, saying one thing about vampires, and having them do another (for example Stoker early on says they are killed by a stake to the heart and/or cutting off the head, but Dracula himself is killed simply with a cut to the throat). The gypsy scene at the end is another inconsistency. --Stbalbach 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since I last read the book, but Stbalbach is right. Dracula prefers night time but he may easily move about during the day, albeit with limited powers. Orlok, in Nosferatu, however is killed by the rising sun as he stays on the equivalent of Mina's bed too long. As I understood it (but again, it's been a while) Bram Stoker has beheading as the means of killing a vampire - the cutting the throat may be just a part of that. But somehow the stake (in Balkan legends only to nail the vampire into the coffin, so that he stays there) has somehow become more popular, appearing in many vampire movies and even in the Lord of the Rings movies. Str1977 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are several instances of Dracula moving about during the day, though it is not clear that he was in direct sunlight at the time. The first is during the infamous shaving incident in the castle with Jonathan Harker, in which Jonathan cuts himself while shaving and notices that the Count has no reflection. The next is when we hear the testimony of a London zookeeper who tells how the Count visited the wolf Beserker shortly before he escapes the zoo. Then of course we have Mina and Jonathan's sighting of Dracula in London when Jonathan panics at seeing the person who for several months has inhabited his nightmares (interestingly enough, at that time, Mina describes the Count as looking "cruel and sensual"). Rachel 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Daylight affair" can be solved by Van Helsing, when speaking to the men about the vampire: "(...)His power ceases, as does that of all evil things, at the coming of the day.
"Only at certain times can he have limited freedom. If he be not at the place whither he is bound, he can only change himself at noon or at exact sunrise or sunset.(...)" There is no word about daylight or sunlight being lethal - or dangerous - to him, and, as noted by the fellow editors, Dracula is seen several times during novel by day. Off course, knowing about his limitations, it's no less than logical tha he himself tried not to be so far away from his havens in case of need.
About the staking or beheading vampire-killing method, "But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan's great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris's bowie knife plunged into the heart." The paragraph implies that Harker's knife - which is noted to be "great" - possibly cuts all the way through the count's throat, thus beheading him. Yet, as at the exact time Morris stabbed him and the body just dissolved, i think the question will remain unsolved. However, the logic says that just any kind of massive damage to vital parts - heart and/or head - could have been lethal. If you ask me, i'd rather put a hand grenade - or a dynamite bar - in his coffin.--Mornatur 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

minor change, first paragraph

Just made some changes:

changed the last sentence of the first paragraph to:

"much of the vampire's popularity in Western culture can be attributed to his novel, which spawned scores of theatrical and movie interpretations."

from :

"the novel's influence on the popularity of vampires cannot be overestimated, spawning scores of theatrical and movie interpretations."

the previous just sounded awkward, I didn't like the use of "overestimated", but some might not find it as awkward sounding as I did, so please change it back if it sounds better to you

Suggestions

Ok some Drac-buffs need to do work here:

(1) Separate the novel and films from the character. The character should include different portrayals of him and also comparison to Vlad III. Dracula (novel) Dracula (character)

(2) The best picture we have is of a postage stamp?

(3) A separate article on the castle, with renditions and possible candidates for the real Castle Dracula. Castle Dracula or Dracula's Castle

--Codenamecuckoo 09:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Just a note

The section explaining the references in Vampire Hunter D referred to the series as manga and movie series. I simply changed it to book series because the movies are not a series in any form.

"Marxist Analysis"

I am not the author of this section but I felt the articles NPOV suffered because of this section. I hope the author is not offended and I'm glad they are contributing to Wikipedia, but this seems much to 'fan-crufty' to be included. It also is of questionable validity--The Wizard of Oz and the Gold Standard anyone?

I have not read the below carefuly, but Marxist analysis of classic literature is pretty standard in academia. It's not OR or fan cruft because sources are included. This section needs to be distilled to its essence - 1 paragraph - and made NPOV and re-added to the article. --Stbalbach 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the original author, I'm not at all offended, and would like to suggest anyone who wishes to doso may condense, change, alter, or otherwise improve the contribution I made. Provided they doso critally and leave it better than they found it. --Davou 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Marxist analysis of Bram Stoker's dracula

It may not have been Stoker’s intent, but in light of contemporary global political turns, it can be argued that Dracula is a satire of capitalism and the social castes that led to it. Stoker often creates and exaggerates the then modern divide between the classes, and illustrates the rising middle class in his mainline characters and their interaction with secondary personae.

Bram Stoker seemed to be very deliberate in placing his characters smack center in the social spectrum. Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, Mina Murray, Lucy Westenra, John Seward and Quincey Morris are all members of the rising middle class by either trade, birth or marriage. [While Dracula and Goldaming are both members of the now defunct and then dying upper class or bourgeois.] As Senf notes “Considering the importance of class in the nineteenth century […], it would be a mistake to ignore class when reading anything written in the nineteenth century” (Senf, 99). This includes when one reads into the characters present in such a story. “Nineteenth century preoccupation with class should motivate readers of any nineteenth-century work to examine class issues, Stoker’s novel is so obvious in its treatment of class.” (Senf, 99). The barefaced nature in which Stoker separates class and defines the divide in Dracula only serves to further accentuate the satirical nature in which Dracula would be read by a Marxist or neo-Marxist observer.

Dracula can be viewed as stokers Marxist attack in capitalist upper class citizens in Europe. “Recent Marxist critics have alighted on Dracula as illustrating what they see as inherent contradictions in capitalism” (Leatherdale, 216) those illustrations in particular being the nature of Dracula as a vampire (whose nature it is to thrive by causing others two falter. The bourgeois, like the vampire, strives only to the end of impoverishing the lower class of money (blood) and to placate the proletariat’s desire to rise against them; “They, therefore, endeavor, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms.” (Marx, 24) In essence Dracula is the archetypal capitalist exploiter” (Leatherdale, 216) and is similar to the Marxist bourgeois in the way that he returns continually to exploit the blood of his victims; “No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” (Marx, 7). Stoker only strengthens these points when he makes reference to “The Czarina Catherine” in choosing a name for his ship; coincidence that the ship which carries Dracula (symbolic of capitalism and the bourgeois) away from England is named for a member of the monarchy that spawned one of the first, and most notorious Marxist revolutions?

The nature of Stokers satire is reverberated and gains strength in the way he is consistent with his opinion of the working class peoples. As Senf suggests, “In general, Stoker is condescending towards his working-class characters, presenting them as drunkards and cowards, occasionally even as thieves” (Senf, 105) and as a result, he establishes a stage for Dracula’s air of superiority, and an exposition of his ignorance regarding the nature of his own social position. For instance “While still in Transylvania Dracula ‘works’ as a coachman, a cook, a chambermaid, and a valet” (Senf, 106). and “In England Dracula adds another menial occupation to his resume of skills—That of laborer. […] The laborer who helps him unload the boxes of earth at Dracula’s estate at Piccadilly” (Senf, 107). in both instances Dracula’s likens himself to the lower class, in contradiction of the nature of his aristocratic position as ‘count’.

Finally one must take time to examine the nature of endings in the book. The time must be taken to notice it is significant that the the only American present was made to die. Ironic, how the nation that has become synonymous with capitalism today was represented in the book by a character who was unable to live. It can be assumed that this is representative of communist/neo-communist apathy towards capitalism. This apathy repeats itself in Dracula’s death, a most anti-climactic climax if there ever was one. Dracula falls limply from the protection of his box, and is slain by the quick and swift motion of a working class blade.

If stoker did not intend his work to be a Marxist satire on the capitalist bourgeoisie, and was instead truly a bigot against the lower class, it is the duty of the intellectual proletariat to interpret his work in such a way, and return it to the sphere of intellect, to demonstrate the efficient nature of the working class effort.

Sources Senf, Carol A. “The comedy of class: Blood Drunkenness, and Hard Work.” Dracula: BetweenTradition and modernism. London: Prentice Hall International, 1998 99- 113.

Leatherdale, Clive. “Dracula as Social and Political Commentary.” Dracula: The Novel and the Legend. Willingborough, Nothhamptonshire: The Aqaurian Press, 1985. 206-222

Marx, Engels, Karl, Frederic. "The Communist Manifesto." Pro. January 25, 2005. Project Guttenburg. 21 April 2006 <http://isis.library.adelaide.edu.au/pg/6/61/61.txt>.

(someone please review this section for grammar/spelling as they are not my strongest point.)

I'm sorry, but i actually think most of the analysis it's based on loosely assumed premises which need to be revised. For an instance, in the second paragraph the Lucy Westenra character is placed as a "member of a rising middle class", while Stoker clearly suggests, in one of Mina's diary entries, that the Westenra's are upper-class and maybe connected to nobility.
In a broad sense, i feel the analysis a little bit biased and thus inadequate to inclusion in the article; maybe you can think on a separate article from where you can connect this with other ones in the same topic, but i think that when someone comes looking for info on Dracula - or any other subject - he/she should be provided with neutral information. As there are no arguments on the opposite direction to establish an equilibrium, the readers should find themselves biased, on favour or against the analyis and, consequently, the novel, which i think its anappropiate.
Of course, it's just the most humble and respectful opinion. It's up to you, guys. --Mornatur 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Mornatur seems to be right (and the Marxist analysis above wrong).
The Holmwoods are top nobility, the Westenraas not very much below them,certainly upper class. Jonathan and Mina are of modest origins, though they quickly become wealthy through the death of Hawkins. Seward and Van Helsing are academics. Quincey an american adventurer of unknown social status, though there is some connection to Arthur. If there is any concern for class in the novel it is placed between the heroes, most notably the two couples. Str1977 (smile back) 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Duckula

I've made a minor change to the Popular Culture section to correct a statement about Count Duckula. The Count is a creation of Cosgrove Hall, not Nickelodeon. He's a spin-off character from Dangermouse. Snowflake Sans Crainte 00:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Split article

Disagree with tag suggesting to split the article into a dab page. There is a lot of context and discussion that would be lost that is currently in the article. I would consider creating a "Dracula in the arts" or "Dracula in popular culture" article, similar to Frankenstein in popular culture, and making this entirely a novel article -- Stbalbach 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

LibriVox recording

Please consider adding a link to the public domain, LibriVox recording of the book to this article: http://librivox.org/dracula-by-bram-stoker/

thistlechick 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

rare missing chapter

Regarding this entry:

Another rather obscure segment missing from the published text in the ending of the story involves Dracula's castle crumbling into ruin after Dracual is slain.

I've removed entirely from the article as I think it is BS. -- Stbalbach 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Whether or not Dracula was actually slain is never addressed, as he was attacked in a fashion dissimilar to Lucy and his reaction is distinctly different. However, Stoker's original manuscript contains a passage removed from the published novel in which Castle Dracula literally explodes at the instant of the Count's death, providing a note of finality to his demise."
It's a mistake:
"As I looked, the eyes saw the sinking sun, and the look of hate in them turned to triumph.
"But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan's great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris's bowie knife plunged into the heart.
"It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight.
"I shall be glad as long as I live that even in that moment of final dissolution, there was in the face a look of peace, such as I never could have imagined might have rested there."
Dracula died, his soul freed and his body dissolved, as Van Helsing earlier in the novel said it was possible to happen. The vampire hunters even took measures in the case it won't happen. I suggest the paragraph to be entirely removed from the article.--Mornatur 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's not so unlikely, and i have heard the rumor myself years ago, but i have found no editorial proof. There is again the possibility the original author of the article based most of it on the Dracula movies, as seen in the stabbing and the strange wolf subjects.--Mornatur 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have the Norton Critical Edition which is usually pretty comprehensive about these types of things and it makes no mention of a lost chapter or alternative ending. -- Stbalbach 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm allowing myself to change that paragraph, then.--Mornatur 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

history

This page said nothing about the Romanian prince, Vlad Dracula, who Bram Stoker really based his novel on. The history channel just aired a special on Dracula and a short biography can be found at http://members.aol.com/johnfranc/drac05.htm.

Thanks!

Actually, it does talk about Vlad. However the evidence that Stoker based his character on Vlad is very weak. -- Stbalbach 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
With a split article focused on the Dracula character, it would be possible to enhance info about Vlad. By the way, even if the Stoker's character wasn't based on Vlad, at least the name's origin it's clear enough to keep the Vlad subject important. --Mornatur Ormacil 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Not saying it's not important, and our article does address it (split or no). Also the connection to the word "Dracula" does not mean he was inspired by Vlad it's more complicated. -- Stbalbach 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I´m trying, without success, to find info obout a celt chieftain, named ABHARTACH (Possibly misspelled) who might have been another source character for the Count Dracula. Yet my analog resouces - my own and my town's libraries - are lame on the historic subject. Please, if anybody has access to ACADEMIC VERIFIABLE SOURCES about Abhartach, please let me know. --Mornatur Ormacil 13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a wikipedia article Abhartach and Google has a bunch. Try also books.google.com, archive.org, a9.com (books). I think the only thing you'll find are quotes from researchers giving their opinion - if there was hard factual evidence it would be common knowledge. -- Stbalbach 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article Abhartach seems to be a stub. And the other sources look no better. Thank you anyway. I'm still in the search.--Mornatur Ormacil 23:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dracula: character basis

When i first came upon this article - and this discuss page - i found myself troubled with the systematic doubt about the character basis of the count Dracula, and the several notations about the fact of Dracula possibly not being based on Vlad Tepes. So i went to read the novel again and found this on a Dracula dialogue on chapter 3: "Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!"

This, with some other phrases like this one - being this the most concise - and with the very detailed Count's portrait on chapter 2, make clear - at least to me - that the original inspiration for Count Dracula was, indeed, the Voivoda Drakulya, Vlad Tepes, and that Stoker has in fact made some research on him, the extent of such research being wide or narrow being a minor matter and unrelated to the fact of Stoker never having visited Transilvania by himself.--Mornatur Ormacil 22:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

radu?

I watched some film a few years back where it was STRONGLY implied that mehmed the second and a 12-14 year old Radu the Handsome were being gay together. in one scene radu was dressed in nothing but silk pants(a gayish reputation...) so were they really lovers.

Dracula's Guest

"In 1914, two years after Stoker's death, Dracula's Guest was published. This was in fact the deleted first chapter from the original manuscript, which the publishers deemed unnecessary to the overall story." THis is tripe. Not even a cursory glance at the text can lead to such an error. Miller's work has shown this conclusively as well. Check out dracula sense and nonesense sometime. --Jasonnolan 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources added. A quick browse of Google Books confirms this is a popular and widely known bit of trivia. If it is "right" or not is an entirely different issue. Where's your source, what does it say? -- Stbalbach 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Jasonnolan, but even the editors of most english and spanish versions of the novel, when "Dracula's Guest" is added, comment on the fact of it being omitted onn the first edition. --Mornatur Ormacil 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Note It looks like the "Dracula's Guest" material is indeed added to modern editions, but that this is done inconspicuously, so that the reader doesn't know the material was ever omitted and published separately. (It's the first chapter that starts as he goes from Munich and ends as the driver takes the coach back in hand after the wolves disappear, right?). I had to be reminded of this detail to notice that the first chap, I read independently long ago, and that the firt time I read Dracula (in an edition from the 50's), it started with Harker arriving at Castle Dracula. --Svartalf 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian V. Romanian

There are several reasons people confuse Dracula with Hungarians. First of all the article correctly points out that Stoker incorrectly called Dracula a Szekely and that group is only for Hungarians. Second, the most famous movie Dracula was played by Hungarian Bela Lugosi. Lugosi even inserted some Hungarian into the scripts. Last but not least, Hungarians ruled Transylvania for a thousand years. Inspite of everything above the real Dracula was a Romanian. We Hungarians get enough grief from George Soros so we dont need another Vampire.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) .

Mmh, never heard of anyone confusing Hungarians with Dracula.
The literary figure of Dracula is a Szekely (self-declared) even though he also claims Vlad Tepes who was not a Szekely but is not identical to the novel's protagonist either. Str1977 (smile back) 17:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Films

Zoe, KQ, film buffs alert! There was no links on the page either to the Browning film or the Hammer films, because, amazingly there are no articles in the Wikipedia on any Dracula film except Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein!

Wasn't there a recent movie about the filming of the original Nosfertatu in which the actor playing the vampire actually was a vampire?Ortolan88

Yes, Shadow of the Vampire, with John Malkovich as Murnau and Willem Dafoe as the vampire. -- Zoe

There are more than enough movies featuring Dracula to serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article entitled List of movies featuring Dracula, but would it be more efficient to do a List of vampire movies and include a special section for Dracula? --Modemac 17:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the second option: "List of vampire movies". --Paul A 01:38, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reference to the IMDB search finding fourteen films with "Dracula" in the title was removed - an IMDB title search can't get more results than that anyway. All the sources I've checked give the number of Dracula-related films at 160 minimum, so I've included that number instead. -Sean Curtin 08:32, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Book Value

Can someone verify the value of the first edition of the book? Should we put the approx. value as part of the article? Leonida November 14th 2006

nah it's too open to change and condition of the book for sale and other factors. Check abebooks.com for some current market prices. One asking $90,000.00 "Near Fine in Poor dust jacket; The dust jacket is missing. Signed by author". -- Stbalbach 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thought that the value would be a little higher than that; thanks for the info. Leonida November 15th 2006

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(
)
Vlad III, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler
Vlad III, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler
  • Comment: This is my third DYK nomination. The article in question has just been promoted to GA following an extensive rewrite.

Created by ImaginesTigers (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was recently promoted to GA, checks out for copyvio and neutrality. Earwig only picked up direct quotes. The photo is public domain, looks good and is in the article. Now that ALT1 has been edited, it is more accurate. The fact that Stoker was wrong does not mean about the word's meaning that it wasn't his inspiration, just that we should not make it appear like he was correct. However, I am approving ALT0 per the nominator's request, and because it has fewer points of contention. I added sources from the article since they should be included in the hook as well. QPQ is not needed since this is only the nominator's third nomination. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The Wallachian dialect of Romanian doesn't really exist, Romanian is divided into two main groups, the northern variant (Moldavia, most of Transylvania and the northermost parts of Dobruja) and the southern variant (Wallachia, most of Dobruja and southeastern Transylvania). This southern variant is divided into more subvariants such as Muntenian and Oltenian, probably the one in southeastern Transylvania is also considered its own but I am not sure about that, but the reality is that it isn't like Oltenian and Muntenian are considerably more similar to each other than with the southeastern Transylvanian variant as to form their own group within the southern variant of Romania, so a Wallachian dialect doesn't really exist. Here are some maps to understand it better [2] [3]. I'll move the page and do the necessary fixes some day. Sorry for so much text about unrelated stuff, but I'd just put "in old Romanian" or "in Romanian" instead of "in the Wallachian dialect". Super Ψ Dro 21:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: The main problem is that I can't substantiate that. Do you have any sourcing to that effect? All of the sourcing that I have reiterate what Stoker said, or simply reproduce it without comment. Don't get me wrong—I believe you! I just can't make it reflect what is accurate because that's not what the (relevant) sources say, so your help would be really appreciated! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I got it wrong. In old Romanian, Dracul meant "dragon", "devil" is the modern meaning (see Vlad the Impaler#Name), so there's no need to put "in old Romanian", which probably makes the sourcing issue easier. By the way, which source would you need? One saying the Wallachian language he was talking about is Romanian? Super Ψ Dro 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Guys: Vlad the Impaler#Name has a rather finely sourced explanation of the name, which Vlad himself used in his signature -- in short, if probably refers to the Order of the Dragon and to his father, Vlad II Dracul, wearing it. At no point did Dracul(e)a mean "devil" in Romanian, old or new, Wallachian or whatever -- even if we were to assume that dracul was the "devil" and not "serpent" in the language of the time, which is patently not the case, draculea is a derivative suggesting possession or kinship by/with dracul (it has no real meaning in modern Romanian). This means that the hook, whatever it is based on, is lazy and inaccurate; so is whatever part of the article it is based on.
(As a side note: it is completely immaterial to the subject, as all primary sources, including Vlad's signatures, are in Slavonic, not Romanian: but there is such a thing as a Wallachian dialect, and info I sourced the article on Alecu Beldiman suggests that, while fully intelligible to other speakers of Romanian, it had its peculiarities, as in voicing z as a dz, therefore d̦, and j as dj.) Dahn (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, I now note it is based on Stoker's own quote: "Dracula means means devil." Guys, this is precisely why you should differentiate between a fact and a report of a fact -- it is easily disputable that Draculea ever meant "Devil", and in any case Dracula in that form doesn't even exist in Romanian (well, it does now: it only refers to Stoker's novel). Stoker was not an authority on Romanian, and he couldn't even speak it; he was probably just parsing the few words he could discern and spelling them the way he heard them. So the "fact" is not that Dracula means "devil" in Romanian, it is that Stoker thought it did. Make what you will of this. Dahn (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Revisied the alt, but I'll say that my preference is still for the primary hook, not the alternate which I'm aware has issues. What "dracula" actually meant is irrelevant to the reason Stoker picked it. He didn't pick it because of Vlad the Impaler; he liked the meaning given in whatever book he saw it in. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Uh, the ALT hook now says "because he thought it meant devil", which seems fine to me. I also prefer the first hook. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller, Elizabeth (1999). "Back to the Basics: Re-Examining Stoker's Sources for "Dracula"". Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. 10 (2 (38)): pp. 187–196.
  2. ^ McNally, Raymond T.; Florescu, Radu (1973). Dracula: A Biography of Vlad the Impaler. pp. 360.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dracula/Archive_1&oldid=1085454491"