Talk:Dracula

Template split discussion
There is an ongoing discussion about the propriety of the recent split of Dracula (which had been stable since its creation in 2006) resulting in a the new Adaptations of Dracula (created September 21) at Template_talk:Dracula.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Kretzulesco" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kretzulesco. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Any watchers?
Hi there. I'm planning to tackle this article as my next project. This is a very old article, and with a long history, and it’s been suffering from dust accumulation for many years now, by the looks of it. Some sections look better than others (Adaptations is surprisingly well-structured; Reception is a scattered mess). Plot will have to be trimmed, perhaps significantly. I'm just checking in to see if this page has any watchers. If you're interested to see the type of work I do, you can have a look at my last project, The Turn of the Screw. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Femme du Pays, hi! Please try and get the length back down a bit. It’s only meant to be a summary. Not all of that needs to be included. The book isn't that long–750 words should be more than enough. The plot isn't a replacement for the plot; it is a refresher, a primer. You keep adding content when PMC and I tried to get it down. I don't want to revert at all, but try and focus on what you can cut. It’s already ballooned by 100 words... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit for length; I'm primarily looking for factual errors. I'm doing my best to keep it short.Femme du Pays (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Femme. I've trimmed it down a little again; if I change something too much let me know. It’s a little frustrating that we only mention Renfield once, but I understand that we do really have to mention him. Jiggle away if things are out of order, obviously -- it’s been a year since I last read it! Thanks again, Femme :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All done for now, I promise if I spot any more changes I'll wait until 18 Jan so you can work on brevity uninterrupted. Thanks so much, sorry if I stepped on toes!Femme du Pays (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! Your changes are terrific. I'm going to be moving off Plot now, and onto the rest of the article. I'm going to start with the novel's critical reception. I'd recommend not touching anything outside of plot, because I might end up removing it, and I don't want you to waste any of your time right now. Check in here for my progress as I move through. Glad to have you here, though. The section is looking pretty good! I'll fill in the lead at the end of this process :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the feedback and heads up! The Plot area really stood out for me, as I have been studying it carefully for the last six weeks as part of a personal project. If you ever want a detailed timeline of the entire novel, or timelines from the POV of Mina, Lucy, or Jonathan, I have one! ;) — Femme du Pays (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Femme du Pays. If you want to have a look at my progress so far, you can find it on my Sandbox. It looks a little off right now, and I'll do the lead at the end, but this is going to be a long process. The article needs much more work than I thought :'( Any thoughts on structure would be great! I'm not entirely sure how everything should slot together yet, but that'll become more clear as I do more research and discover what's most discussed in modern criticism. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The page is going to look bare for a few days.
I'm about to start proper work on this article, moving material over from my Sandbox to the article itself. Some sections are just going to look incomplete at first, and there will be obvious omissions from the page. Bear with. This process shouldn't take more than a week, and I think we will have a much stronger article at the end of this process. Thank you! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot - Undead Lucy
The plot summary stated that "They [the men] ward [Lucy] back to her tomb, then stake her heart, behead her, and fill her mouth with garlic to keep Dracula from reviving her." (Ch. 16) In fact, the men held crucifixes and the Host to protect themselves from Lucy (Van Helsing leaps between Lucy and Arthur with his outstretched crucifix) and Van Helsing has actually used a special putty to keep Lucy *out* of her tomb; once she is unable to embrace Arthur, she turns back to her tomb but cannot re-enter it until Van Helsing removes some of this putty. So she is not driven back ("warded") to her tomb, but rather allowed to re-enter it when it is clear that is where she wants to go. If she had wanted to go anywhere else, the men had no ability to stop her.

Van Helsing states that the purpose of staking Lucy, beheading her, and filling her mouth with garlic is not to prevent Dracula from reviving her, but simply to "kill her in her sleep." (Seward's journal, 27 Sept, Ch. 15). The possibility of Dracula reviving her, or any other vampire, is never mentioned in the novel.

The vampire hunters prudently wait for the daytime before attempting to stake Lucy in her tomb. (Ch. 16)Femme du Pays (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * After the four vampire hunters see Lucy close-up in the graveyard, Morris, Holmwood, and Seward all return to the asylum and sleep; Van Helsing returns to his hotel. The next day, they meet Van Helsing at his hotel shortly before noon, and return to the cemetery at around 1330. See: Ch. 16, the end of Seward's journal entry for 28 Sept (continued from Ch. 15) and the start of his journal for 29 Sept. Femme du Pays (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The Road to FAC
Hi! If you've been keeping up with my progress on the Talk page, you'll know work started on Dracula around the beginning of the year, was interrupted by real-life, and has now reached a pretty major milestone: my changes have gone live! Here is a brief overview of my changes thus far; following is the steps required to get the article to a state where it could be nominated for FA.


 * What I've done:
 * A fully updated bibliography, with reference to the eminent Dracula scholars and theorists. In no particular order they are: Robert Eighteen-Bisang, Elizabeth Miller, John Edgar Browning and Allison Milbank, Joseph S. Bierman, and (regrettably) Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally (these last two are responsible for a lot of the myths surrounding Dracula influences).
 * A themes section—a huge omission from the article's last iteration, given who tends to be reading these sorts of articles to learn (students).
 * With Femme du Pays, condensed the plot summary and removed the character list.
 * A heading about the narrative, with subheadings specifically devoted to style (epistolary novel) and genre (Gothic).
 * A condensed section about adaptations, more suited to such a topic, when it already has its own dedicated article (Count Dracula in popular culture).
 * A section on Stoker's writing of the novel, drawing mostly from the annotated versions produced by Bierman, Eighteen-Bisang and Miller.


 * What needs to be done:
 * Major themes, as a section, is unfinished. Disease is a major part of Dracula criticism, and needs to be here.
 * A heading for Context and interpretation, with three subheadings: psychoanalysis (sex, penetration, etc), economics (specifically capitalism), and religious (catholicism). These are the major interpretive responses to the novel. Psychoanalysis will have some overlap with the "Gender and sexuality" section of Major themes, so I'll need to be careful there.
 * Expand Adaptation. Right now it’s super bare, and should offer a broader overview of Dracula and its adaptations across a variety of popular culture. The bigger concern here is adding either a subheading for legacy—the novel's influence on horror and vampire fiction. Also, establishing what the book originated vs what its film/stage adaptations did (aesthetics and so on).
 * Bulk out genre a bit more with some more information on how Dracula draws from earlier Gothic works (and inspires later one).

Right now, this is what's jumping to mind. Open to any and all feedback you might have, and I hope the article's a good read for anyone interested in reading! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again, ImaginesTigers! I just checked the article after a couple weeks and you could knock me over with a feather! I've just skimmed it lightly but it looks great to me! I hope to give it a proper reading in the next few days.


 * As always, my particular bailiwick is keeping an eye on the plot. I notice that someone has added a footnote about the hunters waiting outside the tomb until daylight to stake Lucy. That is not exactly right; they actually leave the cemetery and return at 1:30 pm the next day (see addition to Plot - Undead Lucy above for details). Could you fix that please? I can't figure out how to edit it myself, but we both want accuracy. Later! Femme du Pays (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Femme du Pays. I've just deleted the footnote—doesn't need to be there. Thanks for your assistance, and hope you learn at least a few things when you find the time to give it a read! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That works! :) In haste, Femme du Pays (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Me again. I've read the article completely now, although it deserves more attention than I've given it so far. Here's some feedback (barring typos, which I will fix shortly).


 * This is definitely a major upgrade and you have clearly done a ton of hard, hard work. Kudos! I'm delighted by all the new info, especially citations to Miller and Eighteen-Bisang's work. I especially liked the sections on Race and on Disease. I've been thinking about possible racism against Romani in Dracula. As a non-Romani 21st Century Canadian, racism against Romani seems remote to me, but it is a reality which may have played a role in Stoker's writing. Also, the only clearly Jewish person in the book is Dracula's agent, Hildesheim, who is described in negative racial terms by Harker. I am aware of the WP rule against Original Research, so this is simply a suggestion of stuff to watch for in the scholarly literature.


 * Is there anything scholarly on mental illness as a theme? It seems like Harker and Renfield could be foils in that regard. Harker seems in a precarious mental state from almost the first pages of the book, and seems to be mentally stronger by the end. Renfield, on the other hand, goes from bad (committed to an asylum) to worse (attempted murder of Seward, for one).
 * No, not really. Dracula criticism has developed along very defined pathways: gender, disease, criminology, race. I'm sure I'd be able to find someone talking about something to do with insanity, but it’s likely to go back to one of those four things. And there's significant overlap between even them—disease is linked to race; criminology is linked to race; all are linked to gender. It’s a whole thing! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)


 * Narrative section - I was a little puzzled by the "identity preservation" idea as written, since Seward's journal was dictated into a phonograph; I don't recall any indication that he even knows shorthand writing. Harker's journal entries from Castle Dracula are definitely a coping strategy though; he even says as much.
 * This isn't the first feedback I've got that this section is confusing, so thanks for flagging it up! I'll make this section my next priority. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
 * Okay. I've looked back into this. Harker is preserving his account in shorthand, but Seward is not. It’s just the wording that threw me off: "In common with Seward and Mina, Harker decides to record events in as much detail as possible in the anxious hope the circumstantiality can counter strangeness. Keeping his journal thus becomes a therapeutic act of self-preservation, apparently all the more secure from Dracula's scrutiny because it is written in shorthand" (p. 65). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Crew of Light" - This was a new term to me; it is not used in the novel, and it is only used twice in the article at present. Is it a standard term within scholarly works?
 * It is indeed, but you're right—it either needs to be mentioned somewhere or cut. It was coined by Christopher Craft in his very influential Kiss Me with those Red Lips': Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker's Dracula]. From page 130 (a footnote explanation to the term's first instance): "This group of crusaders includes Van Helsing himself, Dr. John Seward, Arthur Holmwood, Quincey Morris, and later Jonathan Harker; the title Crew of Light is mine, but I have taken my cue from Stoker: Lucy, lux, light." Craft's essay has been especially influential in modern Dracula criticism. If you just Google "crew of light" it should turn up a lot of Dracula''. Here's another article attesting to the term and its origin: Eszter Muskovits's 'The Threat of Otherness in Bram Stoker's Dracula'. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Footnote §m - I thought I might be able to help by checking the page number in my 1972 edition of In Search of Dracula. I found the sentence "It was an immediate success," on page 158 (vs 162 in the edition you cite), but it is about the Deane & Balderston play, not the novel.
 * Let me come back to this! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)
 * ImaginesTigers, I found the quote in the 1972 edition. On p. 156, they write: "Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of the most horrifying books in the English literature. It was published in May 1897, was an immediate success, and has never since been out of print." (emphasis mine). Sorry I missed this! I would fix it myself, but I am really afraid that I'd mess it up, based on past experience. Femme du Pays (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please keep up the good work-- I fear I might be giving the impression that I'm taking potshots at your work, but I am definitely a fan. I could never have done what you have, so all I can do is cheer you on and give feedback to (hopefully) improve it even more. Femme du Pays (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Don't worry. It doesn't come across that way at all. Wikipedia is collaborative and the feedback is really helpful, especially when Wikipedia can—in spite of the collaboration—be pretty isolated. Really glad you appreciate the article's updates, and looking forward to making it better! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Plays
I'm not trying to make a fuss. I was just wondering if the adaptations section mentions plays multiple times, if we should add a play category.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

Themes section
Is the themes section representative of modern scholarship? Or is it just a band of select individuals who view it that way, inspired by today's trends and fads?.StairySky (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s the former. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely hilarious...and wrong... 80.57.2.97 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely the latter. It's the sort of desperate straw-grasping normally associated with the likes of Amanda Marcotte, and other outrage-starved, IDpol-baiting hacks who write for Salon, Vice and similar clickbait mills.  If you look at Dracula, a pale skinned European nobleman of an explicitly Christian background, and see a Jew or a 'person of colour', that's on you.  Not on Bram Stoker.  If Stoker had explicitly stated that Dracula represented his fear of immigrants, then it would certainly merit inclusion here.  But instead we just have the baseless speculation of a few professional whiners. Hell, the real historical Vlad Dracul is admired by the European far-right today because he spent his life defending Europe from his country's Muslim neighbours.  Trilobright (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question
Re: "Abraham Van Helsing as an iconic vampire hunter."
 * – Has his iconic status been certified by the International Iconography Commission? – Sca (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is more likely to become a productive discussion if you state your position plainly rather than shrouding it in irony. Colin M (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's one of the most over-used (and misused) words in the English language, so much so that it's become a cliché. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard Time
All of the previous work on this article about Stoker's novel's use of competing time zones and calendars (Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar, Greenwich Mean Time, the universal day) seem to have disappeared. There's a brief mention of Franco Moretti but all of the progress scholarship has disappeared leaving only a few critical pieces. See for example https://econundead.com/excerpts/killing-time-dracula-and-social-discoordination/ in Glen Whitman and James Dow (eds), Economics of the Undead: Zombies, Vampires and the Dismal Science (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.157.12 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalism
This major theme also seems to have disappeared altogether. 130.157.157.12 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It'll be back! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dracula Daily
I wonder if the recent trend of reading this book chronologically via the "Dracula Daily" newsletter is worth a mention? Maybe somewhere in the "Legacy" section?

https://www.polygon.com/23063882/dracula-daily-tumblr-memes 159.153.90.1 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether Dracula was Dracula
The discussion under “Influences” of whether Dracula is Vlad the Impaler is silly. 1. a. Vlad the Impaler was called Dracula. b. the Count in the novel is called Dracula. This should be a clue. 2. a. Our article on Vlad says, “Vlad Dracula … 1428/31 – 1476/77… was Voivode of Wallachia”; “He invaded the Ottoman [Turkish] Empire, devastating the villages along the Danube.” b. Stoker has a character say, “He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land.” The article on the novel makes the identification of Dracula with Dracula sound like a tenuous theory rather than the obvious truth. Obugov (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have just finished reading the Stoker novel and agree entirely with your point; it is quite clear from the quote above (p256 in the Penguin Classics edition, for anyone who wants to check) that Stoker identifies Dracula as Vlade Tepes. The statement in the Did You Know nomination section above, "that although Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Báthory are popularly believed to have inspired Dracula, Bram Stoker's notes mention neither figure" is therefore misleading; so are the statements in the Wikipedia entry which suggest that Dracula is not identified as the historical figure. 59.102.48.90 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Although it seems obvious to you, it is not supported by mainstream Dracula scholars, based on close examination of Stoker's notes and sources. Even McNally and Florescu, who popularised the idea, backed away from it in their later years because they couldn't find clear evidence. Stoker did not know essentially anything about Vlad the Impaler; there is no evidence to suggest he did.
 * His grandson, journalist Daniel Farson: "Stoker seized on the name of Dracula, together with a vague impression of the background, and that was all". He selected the name because it meant "devil".
 * Another scholar, Clive Leatherdale: "It has always been assumed Stoker knew of the foul practice of the Impaler... But when we read the novel carefully, we search in vain for any reference to the historical Dracula other than to generalised, and muddled, accounts of the Hungarian campaigns against the Turks in the fifteenth century".
 * David J Skal, who later edited the Norton Critical Edition of Dracula, wrote Stoker was inspired "only to an extent" by Vlad in Hollywood Gothic 22.
 * We know exactly what book Stoker got the name "Dracula" from. It does not include details on Vlad the Impaler (you can read more on this in the article, under Textual composition).
 * I am not going to litigate this here at length, but it is worth noting this belief is based on years of misinformation from popular media. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that Stoker knew anything about Vlad the Impaler's practices, simply that in his novel Van Helsing unambiguously states "he must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the turk" - this is unambiguously a reference to Vlad Tepes. It doesn't mean the character was 'inspired' by Tepes or that Stoker knew anything about him apart from his title of Voivode and the Dracula name, but it does mean Van Helsing is stating the historical Vlad Tepes is the character in the novel. It seems to me there is a distinction to be made (and is being made by the quoted shcolars) between being "inspired by" knowledge of the historical figure and his practices, and simply using the name and attributing it to the historical figure. Dan Farson's comment as quoted above, taken at face value, could be taken as implying Stoker had never heard of Vlad Tepes. That clearly can't have been the case, because as the relevant passage from the novel makes clear, Stoker knows there was a historical figure named Dracula who had been Voivode of Transylvania. Whether he knew him as Vlad Tepes or simply as Dracula seems to me to be beside the point. 59.102.48.90 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the references I presented explain, the novel is mixing up multiple Vlad Draculas. If it were Vlad Tepes, Stoker would have mentioned his cruelty; but he didn't because he only knew he liked the name "Dracula". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "Dracula the Un-Dead" and "Dracul"
I have removed the "Dracula the Un-Dead" and "Dracul" books from the "Universe" section. They are no different then Anno Dracula or the Book of Renfield. They were not authored directly by Stoker and are already listed under the other literature section. Grinhelm (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
Hi! I think under or at the end of the "Reception" subsection, a further update could be included that references John Edgar Browning's newest research on Dracula's review history (his prior research is cited heavily already). Browning recently co-edited, with David J. Skal, the second Norton Critical Edition of Dracula, which includes a chapter by Browning on on the novel's critical reception. See the following: https://www.academia.edu/50947406/_Draculas_Critical_Reception_Myth_and_Reality_in_Dracula_Norton_Critical_Editions_ed_John_Edgar_Browning_and_David_J_Skal 76.105.100.87 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Hi, could you please provide a summary for us to add? Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Plot synopsis in overview section.
The overview section includes an entire synopsis of the plot. Is this not what the Plot section is for? SalTheBear (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * By overview, do you mean the lead - the very beginning paragraphs? That's intended to be a summary of the entire article, so it's correct for there to be a capsule summary of the plot. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally this section gives a fairly detailed premise of the book. Compare this lead with (completely random example) Twilight. SalTheBear (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has no single protagonist and opens with solicitor Jonathan Harker taking a business trip to stay at the castle of a Transylvanian nobleman, Count Dracula. Harker escapes the castle after discovering that Dracula is a vampire, and the Count moves to England and plagues the seaside town of Whitby. A small group, led by Abraham Van Helsing, investigate, hunt and kill Dracula." Are you talking about these sentences, in the first paragraph? That is a perfectly reasonable capsule summary for a lead. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should leads for books and films summarise their entire plot? Many don’t, such as the example I gave. SalTheBear (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I've said now a couple of times, the lead is intended to be a summary of the entire article. For subjects with plots, a properly-written lead should provide a capsule summary of the entire plot. Dracula is a Good Article, which means it has gone through a content review process and is considered to be one of our better-written articles. Twilight has not, so it may not be as complete as another article. But feel free to add a better summary to the lead of Twilight if you like. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think leads should give the premise, not the full plot. The rule you state is not universally followed in Good Articles: Citizen Kane is a Good Article and barely has a premise in its lead. SalTheBear (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about spoilers, you should know that we do not remove information on the basis that it may spoil the plot. See WP:SPOILERS. Otherwise, it's not particularly clear what your objection is. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The guidance you link quite well summarises my objection: “Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.” 63 of the first 87 words of the lead are a plot overview. SalTheBear (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So you object to having 63 words in a 322-word lead briefly summarize the plot and introduce the most significant characters? What portion would you remove? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality
The whole idea that Dracula contains homosexual themes and that Stoker himself might've been homosexual is only based on one woman's weird projection. Please don't add this to the article. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Link removed from "Dracula" article - story about supernatural watermill, mist/souls, and evil moneylender?
This isn't an argument about the content of an article, but a query about what happened to a link within an article.

Years ago, in the fall of 2021, I read the Wikipedia article about "Dracula", and in the section that described earlier stories that influenced Dracula, there was a link to a story about a supernatural watermill/waterwheel, which generated a mist comprised of the souls of women who had taken debts out from a moneylender. The article(for the mill story) claimed that Bram Stoker had copied much of the content of the story for descriptions within "Dracula".

Since then, however, the link to the story/novel has been removed from the articles for "Dracula" and "Bram Stoker", and I can't find the story within any of the articles for Gothic fiction or Gothic horror. If someone could give me the name of the story, I would really appreciate it. 108.24.166.59 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)