Talk:Dracula/Archive 2

Themes Section
Why has this not been deleted? It appears primarily to be the opinion of the writer, rather than of Stoker himself. Too much of an interpretive leap has been taken for most of the ideas expressed to be justified. For example, how can the writer say with any certainty that

"If the novel sounds a cautionary note, it merely warns against the presumption that established science as yet offers a complete world-view. Within Stoker's fictional universe, (correct) superstitious beliefs have an empirical basis and promise to yield to scientific inquiry."

Appropriate for an English Literature essay, maybe, but for an encyclopaedia entry, no. The idea of a themes section is nice, but most of this crosses the line into personal interpretation. Melaena (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The narrative of this section is too conversational, one sided, and it is clearly original research. I've tagged it where I felt the violations were most glaring—it seems to me that this entire section has been lifted from an editorial comment section, perhaps from one of the many editions of this book, but I've not been able to verify this. If no one steps forward to fill in proper citations soon, I'd vote to go ahead and delete it. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?
Count Cracula starts his vampirism drinking the blood from that bleeding cross, he takes a cup, fills it with the cross' blood and drinks saying "I'll be immortal with the chalice of thy blood" or something similar, I'm pretty sure that's a reference to Catholisism, during their ceremonies they (catholics) symbolically drink the Most Precious Blood (Christ's), it is called Eucharisty. At least that happens in the movie... Should that be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.147.73 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't in the book. --15lsoucy (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Split!
I think the article is quite long and may be, as suggested before, between "Dracula (Novel)", "Dracula (Fictitious character)" and "Dracula (movies and pop. culture)" to make it more comprehensive. --Mornatur 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Frankenstein was split the same way between three articles, seems to work pretty well. -- Stbalbach 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, but, who's gonna do it? I'm afraid my english is far below the Wikipedia standards, so we need a good help from some other wikipedians here. Off course, as long as i'm useful - lame english included - i'll be around. --Mornatur 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - Arkhiver, Member of Wikiproject on Novels


 * I've begun this. Initially, I've simply copied and pasted from the first article.  More will come later. Zahir13 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A sensible approach Kbthompson 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Dracula article for a while, and seeing it today, I just wanted to say that it is GREATLY improved by being split up thus. A salute to those who did this fine work! --Stormie 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Repressed = too POV
The word "repressed" when describing the sexuality of victorians is too POV and has a liberal bias to it. It's inappropriate for a "so-called" non-POV encyclopedia like this. The word conservative is much more agreeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.28.178 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stoker's Knowledge of Vlad the Impaler
While it is certainly interesting to read all of these hypotheses that Stoker knew little of Vlad Dracul[e]a other than the name Dracula itself, this all seems a bit unlikely. The Impaler is by far more common an epithet for Vlad than Dracula. Anyone doing even a cursory read on the historical personage is bound to run across his habit of impaling.

I've read Dracula recently enough to very clearly remember that an important element of Dracula's fictional history, and a plot element of such importance that to leave it out would likely cause the entire story to unravel, is that Dracula was something of a hero during his mortal life; a noble and passionate warrior considered by his people to be the epitome of virtue, valor, and bravery. While it certainly tempts the anti-intellectualist in me to consider that Stoker may have been guilty of such poor research that he had no idea about his character's real-life counterpart being one of history's most sadistic monsters, it seems much more likely that, given Stoker would be familiar with this fact if he'd done enough research to find the name Dracula, he intentionally omitted all the "Impaler" stuff to create a stronger piece of literature and to place the emphasis on the curse of the undead as the ultimate villain rather than Dracula himself. This is far more consistent with what can be found in the narrative: Mina reminds the men that Dracula was once fair and noble; that he is not simply a monster, or that if he is, Mina would someday be this too if they could not cure her. Their fight became not one of revenge against Mina's assailant or a quest simply to rid the world of a great evil, but to free both Mina and Dracula's soul from the curse of the dead un-dead. Not only would all this have been completely underminded if Dracula were a bloodthirsty fiend before his transformation into a vampire, but Dracula's own, unforgettable death scene at the novel's end would've been impossible. The entire theme of redemption that rings so strongly throughout the text would've been either lost or convoluted beyond any clear meaning or message.

So there it is: artistic liscence. Again, while it might be fun to speculate that such an unparalleled work of literary perfection could've been based on plain ol' sloppy research, it is also rather POV to place the emphasis of this article thereon when a far simpler explanation — one consistent with the overall tone of the story and necessary for its theme and moral thesis — exists. Stoker simply left out the parts about Dracula's real-world counterpart that would've underminded the story. --Þorstejnn 03:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that everyone viewed Vlad as a bloodthirsty sadistic monster. He fought the Turks and the nobles who sold out their people to the Turks. Yes he was brutal in his methods, so were alot of "heroes" that modern-day history text books gloss over like Saladin who personally beheaded prisoners after the battle of Hattin or Julius Caesar who cruxified pirates and other prisoners. The age of fighting that we are discussing was anything but civilized. If you're going to make judgements about the distant past, you cannot do so with modern-day morals and codes of conduct. Maybe Stoker knew exactly who Vlad was but he also wasn't writing historical fiction and therefore didn't have to include every single aspect of Vlad's life into Dracula. Most likely, Stoker did base Count Dracula upon Vlad the Impaler. Maybe all of Vlad's deeds were known back then, maybe not. But we cannot conclude one way or another.

According to Elisabeth Miller(2000) and Christopher Frayling (1991) Stoker found the name Dracula and some historical information about Wallachia from William Wilkinson's book "An account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: with various Political Observations Relating to Them" (1820). Stoker did have this book and he did make notes about it.Laurukainen (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dracula and 'Count Dracula'
Shouldn't the character 'Count Dracula' have a separate wikipedia article, as have Lucy Westenra and the other characters in the novel? This present article seems to confuse the novel 'Dracula' with the character 'Dracula', who, if you read the book, does not appear very often and is not always the centre of interest. Colin4C 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be a separate article for the count. --Codenamecuckoo 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody has just created the much needed page: Count Dracula (fictional character). However as soon as it was created an admin swooped down and requested it be merged with this article! Doh! Colin4C 12:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some material to the new Drac bio article. Would be nice if some of the Dracula experts here could add some more. Colin4C 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear why we need a separate article. No other articles link to it, and since a large portion of this article is about Count Dracula (origins etc.) it would mean confusion between articles, there is no clear line you cant talk about the Count without talking about the Novel. And we already have a separate page for the Count in popular culture. It adds more confusion than it solves. What is the practical rational for having a separate article? (not "because we could"). -- Stbalbach 00:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All the other main characters in the novel Dracula, have their own page: Van Helsing, Lucie, Mina etc etc. To reiterate: 'Count Dracula' is a character in a novel called 'Dracula'. The novel is not his biography, and for long stretches he doesn't even appear in it, as the action focuses on Van Helsing etc. I think some people are confused with the film adaptations where Count Dracula dominates the proceedings throughout the entire action and then develops his own mythos and comes back to life several times etc etc. For comparison see also that Prince Hamlet has a separate article to the play Hamlet. IMHO it is a conceptual muddle to confuse a character in a novel with the novel itself and then further confuse that character with a later 'mythos'. Colin4C 10:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how you can separate the novel from the character in particular the "Allusions/references to actual history and geography" section. As soon as you start an "origins" section in the Count's article, you have a problem with repeat material and no "main article", in essence a fork of the same material across two articles (material with is controversial and requires a lot of vigilance to keep NPOV). -- Stbalbach 15:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So do you have a problem with the separation of these characters from the novel 'Dracula' and the provision of separate articles for them, viz: Mina Harker, Lucy Westenra, Arthur Holmwood, Quincey Morris, Dr. John Seward, Renfield and Abraham Van Helsing. The latter character especially is about as important as Dracula IMHO - as seen in the title of the latest Dracula film: 'Van Helsing' and the pairing of Cushing and Lee as Van Helsing vs Dracula in the old Hammer Horrors. Do not all your objections as to repetition of material apply to them also? As to question of POVs I don't understand your point at all. Wikipedia is open to editing by all editors and is not the preserve of any self appointed Dracula vigilance committee. And, anyway, if such a vigilance committee was up to the mark, there would already be an adequate treatment of the character Dracula in this present article, which I humbly sumbit, there is not. For instance there is no description of Dracula's appearance and nothing at all about him studying the black arts at the academy of Scholomance in the Carpathian Mountains (see Dracula Chapter 18 and Chapter 23). These are just two random instances in which this present article is seriously inadequate as a guide to the character 'Dracula'. Colin4C 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Colin4C that there is a need for a separate article, not least because leading characters in other books have their own treatments. I think in this case it goes beyond that argument, though, as Count Dracula has a 'fictional independence' that goes beyond this one book - look at the over packing of this article with films and such which wander far from the original character who appears in Bram Stoker's novel. I would think that what people addressing this page would want is a concise readable account of the book.
 * Repetition is always a difficult problem, but it might be avoided with a more sensible balance in not overloading this page on the book - i.e. by offloading some of the greatest flights of cinematic fantasy to a page on the character.Kbthompson 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments by Colin4C and Kbthompson that there is a need for a separate article to reflect the fact that the Count has taken on an entity of his own that deviates far from Stoker's creation. This would result in a more concise article on the original novel. Natalieduerinckx 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Count Dracula has become an icon, different from the character in the novel, fully as much as Sherlock Holmes. Indeed, the character has been transmorgrified and brought forth in many new and different interpretations apart from the novel. He has been a character on television series like Buffy and Superboy. He has been the central character in multiple novel series as well as stand-alone sequels, reworkings, etc. Films have been made purporting to be sequels or retellings of his story, often with very little to do with Stoker's novel. This is pretty clearly a case where the character has gained a life outside his original source material. However, I do think the article would do well with an examination of how the interpretation of the character has evolved--from ugly demon to suave nobleman to cursed lover, etc. Zahir13 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it there are three entities:
 * 1 'Dracula the novel'
 * 2 'Count Dracula', the character who appears in the novel 'Dracula'
 * 3 'Dracula the character who appears in popular culture'.

Maybe we need three separate articles?: Dracula, Count Dracula (fictional character), and Dracula in Popular Culture??? Whatever we do, I think that we should carefully distinquish between the three different meanings of 'Dracula' and not mix them up into a confused bundle. Colin4C 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I would initially go for separate sections on 2 & 3, within an article on "Count Dracula (fictional character)". If that schema, in turn becomes overloaded, then do the split. Any schema should be make sense to a casual reader and be easily accessible. Summaries (2-3 sentences) can be put in here, with main article tags, for the linked page. Doesn't that provide sufficient focus? Kbthompson 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that a good idea, Kb, and it follows the same logic as the already existing articles on Van Helsing and Lucy and Mina etc (who have also been subject to re-interpretation). I'll go with that. Colin4C 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who managed the Lyceum?
There are two contradictory passages in the article:

Between 1878 and 1898 Stoker managed the world-famous London Lyceum Theatre

The Lyceum Theatre, where Stoker worked between 1878 and 1898, was headed by the tyrannical actor-manager Henry Irving

Ubermonkey 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not completely contradictory, but well capable of clarification. Irving was actor-manager of the Lyceum theatre company; Stoker was his theatre manager ... (i.e distinction is: performance/front of house) ... Kbthompson 10:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oldest movie
I once learned that the very first adaptation is older than Nosferatu. It was a Hungarian movie and almost nothing remains of it nowadays. Anyone know about it?... I think it should be good to mention it, even if I don't have any sources to prove my statement.

Klow 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i have heard about that i always thought it was a rumor, but if someone else says it exists i guess it does (shana)

This morning (10/25/2007) NPR's the Diane Rehm show highlighted this novel and a man called in saying he runs a Dracula museum of sorts and has an orgional cut of this film. Apparently it was ordered destroyed by the Hungarian authorities, so a few copies were hidden and one has made it's way into his archive. I'm sure there is a transcript of the show somewhere if someone would like to find out more. Plumlogan 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Racist Work
I was wondering if Dracula was ever considered a racist work and an attack upon Eastern European immigrants who were coming into Great Britain during Stoker's time. Specifically the fact that Dracula came from Transylvania (and Stoker was very specific about the location of Dracula's castle) to England by ship and attacked white British women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.164.90 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2007

It is commonly considered a critique on immigration. Plumlogan 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like nonsense to me. But people need something to write their theses on, I guess. (Personally, I think Stoker was only prejudiced against Eastern European undead. I would be too.) TresÁrboles (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny.Twobells (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC Version
Should any mention be made of the recent BBC version of Dracula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.164.90 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2007


 * Not in this article; the appropriate place to mention it would be the subsidiary article Dracula in popular culture. (There is, in fact, already a paragraph about it in that article.) --Paul A 05:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also a rather detailed article about this adaptation: see Dracula (2006). Enjoy! --Stormie 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help
'''i want to know more about dracula.so i was asking if yuo can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raha sipati (talk • contribs) 2 March 2007


 * dracula is said to be the first vampire. some say that he was raised from the very deapths of the underworld and that anyone can summon him using a spell. he has supernatural powers he is immortel, he survies on the blood of others, he can shape shift into the form of a wolf or a bat, he can appear in a mist or an elementel dust, he has no soul wich due to the fact that mirrors are the gateway to ones soul he has no reflection, he casts no shadow, he has a hypnotic power over his victims, he can turn his victims into vampires. but he also has limitations: he may not enter a househould if the owner of the dwelling is alive without being invited,he loses his powers during the day, he must sleep on the soil of his native land, he can only cross running water at the slack or the flood of the tide, he is repelled by holy symbols-cross(crucifix)holy water, holy wafer- and finaly he can be killed by driving a wooden stake through his heart or decappitating him. (shana)


 * Also has the power to destroy good grammar, obliterate correct spelling, and annihilate proper citations with just a withering glance! TresÁrboles (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Potboiler?
I have deleted the bizarre unreferenced assertion that everybody in Victorian England regarded Dracula as a 'potboiler'. As far as I am aware this is not true and not amenable to demonstration. Also 'potboiler' is a derogatory slang term - not suitable for an encyclopedia. Colin4C 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Standard interpretation and easily cited from many top-tier sources including Norton Critical Edition and Leaonard Wolf. Potboiler is not slang it is a useful and often used term in academic works. -- Stbalbach 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found many contemporary rave reviews from the Victorian period none of which call the book a 'potboiler'. The contemporary 'Christian World' called 'Dracula 'one of the most enthralling and unique romances ever written'. Other reviews called it 'the sensation of the season' and 'the most blood-curdling novel of the paralysed century' etc etc. Nowhere do I find it called a 'potboiler'. And my Collins Dictionary defines the term 'Potboiler' as an 'Informal' usage. I.e. not an academic term or one to be used in encyclopedias I have never seen it used in an academic sense. Maybe you could cite me an example? Colin4C 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now looked at eight contemporary Victorian reviews of the book and NONE have called Dracula a 'potboiler': rather they have called it a classic of Gothic Horror and, inter alia, that it surpassed the novels of Wilkie Collins. Colin4C 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And as for 'top-tier' Leonard Wolf I find his annotated versions of Gothic Horror classics very unreliable. His edition of 'Phantom of the Opera' was particularly bad and his edition 'Dracula' gives astonishing praise in the introduction to the true 'potboiler' author of all time: Anne Rice. Says the (un)sagacious Wolf apropos Rice: 'her work has a visionary grandeur of nearly epic proportions. If we look for a literary achievement as large and dark as her vampire trilogy, we must go back to Charles Maturin's 'Melmoth the Wanderer''!!! Colin4C 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leonard Wolf's footnotes in The Essential Dracula are sometimes trite, sometimes condescending toward Stoker, and frequently present a danger of "spoiling" (i.e. don't read the footnotes if you haven't read the novel yet!) TresÁrboles (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No critic would use the term "potboiler" in a contemporary review unless they are being severely critical. But potboiler used by a literary historian is entirely different, for example A Christmas Carol is often called a potboiler in literary history. Stoker was writing many genre works to supplement his income as a stage manager, he needed the money and set out to write books to make money, the term potboiler is useful to get that concept across, as many literary historians have found. Since you find the distinction and contextual usage of potboiler problematic, I have removed it. -- Stbalbach 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wallachian Voivodes?
With reference to this passage in the article:


 * Vlad III was an ethnic Vlach. In the novel, Dracula claims to be a Székely - "We Szekelys have a right to be proud..." —. However, few lines down, Dracula claims ancestry from the Wallachian Voivodes - "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!"— This suggests either that Stoker had limited knowledge of the historical facts, or that he deliberately created a fusion of the different elements he found during research reading (the Transylvanian-born and Vlad III of Wallachia, and the Szeckelys with Hunnic descent).

Are we sure that that Dracula is anywhere claimed in the novel to be Wallachian? If you look up the Voivode article you will find that, inter-alia, Hungarian governors of Transylvania were called 'Voivodes' and that the term 'Voivode' is pan-Slavic, describing gov officials from Serbia, to Poland to Russia. Maybe its wikipedia editors who have 'limited knowledge of the historical facts' rather than Stoker...Colin4C 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

About the Hungarian (not Wallachian!) Voivodes (extracted from the Voivodes article):


 * The Voivode of Transylvania (woyuoda Transsiluanus or erdélyi vajda in Hungarian) was one of the barons (or chief office holders) of the Kingdom of Hungary. The vajda was, in effect, a territorial governor or viceroy appointed by the Hungarian crown. He was also the chief magistrate and military commander of Transylvania's counties, and this power inevitably drew the Székely and Saxon territories into his sphere of influence however these territories were governed by counts who were nominally independent of the voivode. The title originated with the Slavic population, prior to the Hungarian conquest of the region. The Transylvanian voivodes, who were closely affiliated with the king, were often far from Transylvania, and local administration frequently fell into the hands of the vice-voivodes. However, some voivodes, such as László Kán (1297–1315), became powerful local rulers, effectively independent of the king. The title was in use from 1199 until the independent Principality of Transylvania emerged in the 16th century. Colin4C 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having repeatedly scanned the text of 'Dracula' I find absolutely no reference to Dracula's supposed Wallachian ancestry. Being the Voivode who crossed the Danube to fight the Turks does not make him Wallachian. Voivodes are not necessarily Wallachian and neither is that nationality obligatory in order to cross the Danube! Colin4C 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage in the book that mentions Wallachia:


 * "That treasure has been hidden," he went on, "in the region through which you came last night, there can be but little doubt. For it was the ground fought over for centuries by the Wallachian, the Saxon, and the Turk.  Why, there is hardly a foot of soil in all this region that has not been enriched by the blood of men, patriots or invaders.  In the old days there were stirring times, when the Austrian and the Hungarian came up in hordes, and the patriots went out to meet them, men and women, the aged and the children too, and waited their coming on the rocks above the passes, that they might sweep destruction on them with their artificial avalanches.  When the invader was triumphant he found but little, for whatever there was had been sheltered in the friendly soil."

It doesn't really say Dracula was Wallachian. Stoker could be referring to the Battle of Călugăreni (1595) "..when the Austrian and the Hungarian came up in hordes", but hard to say for sure. -- Stbalbach 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Country - Ireland?
At the time Dracula was published, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Also the book's first publisher was a UK publisher. So shouldn't it read 'United Kingdom (now Ireland)' or something like that? Kohran 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The formal term for the Union at the time Dracula was published was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I presume the novel was released simultaneously in the UK and Ireland, so it appears that the info box is not accurate as it now stands. Natalie West 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be nice to list the editions of 'Dracula'. For instance as well as the UK edition, there was also a Colonial edition for the benifit of the British Empire. Later there was the American edition. I also read somewhere that the first translation was into Icelandic! Apparantly this Icelandic edition came out in Stoker's lifetime and included a special introduction from Bram himself. Colin4C 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to find out more about that special introduction, and information about other translations. It's probably one of the most-translated books, but there's no information on translations in the article at present at all. Шизомби 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the book i can check but i'm pretty sure it was published somewhere else. in the movie it was made in transylvaina. (Coke12 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Bram Stoker was British and a great anglophile, Ireland at that time was British and he carried British Passport and identity papers, I have updated the entry accordingly.Twobells (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Contradictions
This article: 'The novel is more important for modern readers than contemporary Victorian readers, who enjoyed it as a good adventure story; it would not reach its iconic legend status until later in the 20th century'

The Daily Mail review of June 1, 1897:

"In seeking a parallel to this weird, powerful, and horrorful story our mind reverts to such tales as The Mysteries of Udolpho, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, The Fall of the House of Usher ... but Dracula is even more appalling in its gloomy fascination than any one of these." Colin4C 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to trust the views of academic literary historians Nina Auerbach and David Skal, editors of Dracula by Norton Critical Edition. 1997. ISBN 0393970124, as a source, more than an original research interpretation of single primary source document. -- Stbalbach 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the meaning of your term 'original research interpretation'. How is our interpretation of the words of the Daily Mail review (which is reprinted in the Auerbach and Skal volume by the way) different to our interpretation of the words of Auerbach and Skal themselves? How is one interpretation more original than another? Also, according to your logic, is the plot summary here in this article of Stoker's 1897 text also an 'original research interpretation'?  Colin4C 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Dracula (novel) → Dracula — The novel is the primary and original usage here. Anything else should be disambiguated. —Reginmund 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Strong Support - Anything else called "Dracula" is merely based off of the novel, which is undoubtedly more popular. "Frankenstein" goes to the novel and the monster is only secondary usage. Reginmund 08:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - as it matches other fictional works such as Frankenstein. The problem is that the good count has achieved independence from the novel, and it could be argued that more contemporary accounts of the story actually have a more common usage. The important thing is that we maintain the clear separation between the novel and its later derivatives, and that this page doesn't return to its former state of being a long list of films that have little to do with the original (see prior discussion). Kbthompson 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - changing to Dracula might confuse this article in editor's minds with the Count Dracula article about the fictional character who appears in the novel and the one on Vlad the Impaler about the historical figure who might have inspired the fictional figure and also confuse it with the article on Dracula in popular culture. Colin4C 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The character Dracula (Count Dracula) from the book would be the most likely search topic. 132.205.93.32 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Since when are characters more important than the stories they are in? Parable1991 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about when those characters take on a life of their own and appears in hundreds of books, movies, comics, etc. beyond the original novel that introduced them? :-) --Stormie 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that many of the more popular uses of Dracula are based more on the novel than on the actual character himself. Parable1991 08:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure I agree, have a look at Dracula in popular culture, particularly comics, games, anime and manga, there are a lot of uses of the Dracula character which are only very loosely based on Stoker's novel. But anyway, I have changed my opinion and now support Dracula being the article on the novel despite that, so it doesn't matter really. --Stormie 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If anything, the character should take priority over the novel. I'm sure most people have heard of Dracula, but probably through other mediums such as film and television; I wonder how many have actually sat down and read Stoker's original? PC78 09:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The titular character has long eclipsed the novel whence it originated. Distinguishing the "character" and "novel" entries in the article headings aids readers and editors alike. Malljaja 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Sounds like circumstantial evidence to me "the character should take priority over the novel. Some people would think otherwise. Why cant we just provide a top link for the character Count Dracula? 71.109.186.47 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support If anyone is looking for the character then put a disambig link at the top of this article; . Simple. Masaruemoto 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Dracula redirects here; what are the oppose !votes defending? I will add Masaruemoto' dab, if no-one has; it should be done anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dracula redirected to Dracula (disambiguation) until the creator of this straw poll changed it. I have reverted to allow discussion to continue.
 * Oppose . Whilst I certainly agree that Stoker's novel is the primary and original usage, we decided a while ago that it was necessary to separate Dracula the novel and "Dracula" the character into separate articles, as the combined one was getting much too long, so effectively both Dracula (novel) and Count Dracula can claim to be articles about the "primary and original usage" of the word. For this reason I favour Dracula remaining a redirect to Dracula (disambiguation). --Stormie 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, Support - doing a bit of digging, it seems that Dracula originally covered the novel and character (see for an example of this massive article), then just the novel after the split-off of the character to Count Dracula and the film adaptations etc. to Dracula in popular culture. Then it was unilaterally changed without discussion by User:Daniel tara in May, who felt that Dracula should redirect to Vlad III the Impaler, swiftly reverted to point to  Dracula (disambiguation), and then various other changes and reverts were made to the redirect (including a couple of reverts by me), none of them really discussed. So, anyway, given the long status quo of Dracula referring to the novel, I'm joining the growing consensus here and saying, yes, let's go back to that. --Stormie 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per popularity of the Dracula story, which spawned a myriad of movies and other uses of the character in fiction and popular culture. Lord Sesshomaru 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the novel and the character are competing for primary topic under "Dracula", and it appears that the Dracula (disambiguation) page should be moved to the base name instead. -- JHunterJ 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Tough call, because it's a good dab page, but in the end we wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the novel. This is a classic case for...
 * This article is about the classic novel by Bram Stoker, for other uses see: Dracula (disambiguation)
 * --Serge 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * "Count Dracula" can be found with that wording. Otherwise, one may be directed from the novel itself. the same might as well be said for Frankenstein. Reginmund 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a shame that one of the greatest works of literature is being considered subordinate to some cult spin-offs based on the title character. It is especially silly that some Wikipedians say that the character spin-offs are undoubtedly more popular when then majority of Google hits come up with either information on the novel or one of the novel's adaptations. I have skimmed at least seven of the first Google pages and none of them have articles either exclusively on Count Dracula, or one of his spin-offs... FOR SHAME!!! Reginmund 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So maybe the Dracula disambiguation page is then perhaps the best cyber stop-off for those harbouring such shameful and silly thoughts to reconsider their cognitive destiny? Colin4C 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most definitely! That's why it should be titled Dracula (disambiguation) to show that they are subordinate to the novel. Although I think it would be proper to put a direct link to the Count at the top of the novel's page. Reginmund 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in taking a look at Frankenstein (the novel), Frankenstein's monster, Victor Frankenstein and Frankenstein in popular culture to see the successful split that the split of the Dracula articles was inspired by. --Stormie 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

''Another borderline decision, but I think there is more in favour of having the novel at "Dracula" than anything else. Not least, it is the only one of the major topics whose title actually is "Dracula" (cf. Count Dracula, Vlad the Impaler, etc.) Also, the article had been at that title for a long time, and no consensus was sough t or apparent for the move to Dracula (novel). Finally, having the novel at "Dracula" does fit better with the pattern established at Frankenstein of treating the novel as the primary topic. This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.'' --Stemonitis 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have today clarified (yet again!) the rationale of the Count Dracula article in the top-headings there. These top-headings keep getting altered by neophyte editors, not party to our discussions here, to whom, seemingly, the conceptual difference between a character in a novel and the novel itself is one of life and literature's major mysteries. Colin4C 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Editions
Abovementioned were translations of Dracula, and annotated or other editions of Dracula. If anyone has access to that information, I believe that would be a valuable contribution to the article. Шизомби 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Noferatu copyright issues
The article states the fact that Mrs Stoker refused rights to the producers of Nosferatu; however, it should be noted that releases of the film in the US in fact did use the names from the novel. Orlok was Dracula, and etc. --Bentonia School 06:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vlad
Any reliable citations to refer to Stoker not basing Dracula on Vlad? This is the first I've heard of it. --Bentonia School 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my section on the bottom about Eleonore von Schwarzenberg. Norum (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Dracula"
The article suggests that the name Dracula derives from the word "Dracul" and from the historical character of Vlade III Dracula. However, I have "An Enriched Classic" series edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula, and in the extra credits the word "Dracula" is said to have derived from gaelic words 'droch fhola', meaning bad blood. Does anyone know with certainty of the true origins of the name Dracula, or are all the stated explanations possibly true?

Here's the entire passage from my book, explaining the origin of the word Dracula: " Dracula: The name Dracula is a pun on the Gaelic phrase droch fhola, meaning "bad blood". It is an indication that Dracula may be read as an Irish monster-an Anglo-Irish Protestant landlord or a Gaelic Irish Catholic revolutionary-remains a matter of deliberate ambiguity. "

Here's a (commercial, sorry!) link to a description of the edition of Dracula that I have: http://www.amazon.com/Dracula-Enriched-Classics-Bram-Stoker/dp/0743477367/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195217627&sr=1-3

Perhaps this explanation of the origin of the word could be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.117.7 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The entire plot summary is identical to this one: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dracula/summary.html Mitchx3 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An anon editor seems to have sneaked in that version in whilst our attention was distracted. I have replaced it with the old version. Colin4C (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Themes
I removed the following two paragraphs:

 Along with advances in technology and industry was the Victorian perception of a decline of morality and faith-based values; sexually transmitted diseases were becoming common, especially syphilis. Plagues were believed to have been introduced from without. Dracula, who 'transmits' his vampirism via a highly erotic method, represents a carrier of social fear and decline.

The character of Dracula is representative of 'foreign' and 'invasive'. This fear of the foreigner ties into the theory of Reverse Colonization, where a powerful nation is taken over by a more primitive group. Dracula's character represents these primitive people who come to dominate developed nations. By portraying Dracula as a strange, alien being, Stoker reflects the views of Victorians towards immigrants. 

not because they were nonsense, but because they were nonsense which had no references. There are some factual assertions which I would like to see cites for. As for views regarding foreigners, the Count was described as highly intelligent, well-read, and physically the strongest. And don't forget the other foreigner. How would our English vampire hunters have fared without the capabilities of the Dutchman, Van Helsing?

Feel free to add those paragraphs back in when the proper references are cited so that we know whom to ridicule. TresÁrboles (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

publication date
I've read on a number of websites that the novel first came out on May 26 1897. Should I put it in the infobox? It seems odd that the infobox doesn't even say what month Dracula was published in. 218.215.188.156 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see another section of this article gives May 18 as the publication date. I'll put May in the infobox. 218.215.188.156 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pigeoninlet (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Stoker specifically mentions May 26 in a note sent to William Gladstone.

Climax
What is the climax of this story. also is their any movie based on this novel if so tell me the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.70.180 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many films based on Dracula but i'd hardly call any of them true to the book the climax well read for yourself 71.87.144.230 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Settings
what are the setting and the descriptions of the setting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.70.180 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dracula's heir
I was the one who added the Official Sequel category a few months ago. When I found the info for the first time it mentioned the upcoming sequel titled "The Un-Dead" was being based on Stoker's original notes. This isn't about that section but I was in a bookstore and found a book titled "Dracula's Heir". Looking through it. It appears to have a lot of story also based on Stoker's original notes. The book's copyright says it was published in 2008 by Quirk Productions, inc. I was going to dismiss it as another fan made sequel but it is very similar to what the upcoming sequel sounds like. Is this just another fan made sequel or what is it? It revolves around why Dracula's guest was cut from the book. The main story is girls go missing renfield and Harker are suspects. Dracula may have returned. I will read the whole thing. Is this based on Stoker's notes? The book is by Sam Stall.--VampireKen (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pigeoninlet (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I cannot comment on Stall's book (haven't read it) but I do know a thing or two about Stoker's Notes. In fact, I am co-editor of the recently published "Bram Stoker's Notes: A Facsimile Edition" (McFarland, 2008). This book contains 124 pages of handwritten and typed notes Stoker made while working on "Dracula." Believe me, these notes clarify a number of crucial issues: the relationship between "Dracula's Guest" and the novel, where Stoker found the name "Dracula" and why he used it for his vampire, his information about Transylvania (and his sources), etc.

Thanks. and Dracula's Heir is a fictional version of why the chapter was removed. Thanks for verifying other things for me.--VampireKen (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleonore von Schwarzenberg
Should this be added that Eleonore von Schwarzenberg was actually the real inspiration for Dracula and Gerard van Swieten was the actual inspiration for van Helsing? Norum (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source for it? --Stormie (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is this Austrian documentary from 2007 titled "Vampyrprinsessan" (The Vampire Princess). I just saw it on Viasat History right here in Sweden. Here is a link from the English history channel. http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_429.php

It is the fact that after she died, the doctors ordered autopsy where it was never done on royalty and aristocracy. True, they discovered a tumour, but at that age, they did not know what it was. Also, there were also some remains found in the area with the head chopped off and placed between their legs. When Eleonore von Schwarzenberg was buried in the church, her coffin was not only lowered into the crypt, but also surrounded with a solid, concrete type cage so she would not raise as a vampire. It was like a coffin inside a coffin. Heres a link to the video. It is a clip where the archaeologists open the tomb and lower the camera inside. http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=13792

Norum (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)