This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Funny. Twobells ( talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
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
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
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)
With reference to this passage in the article:
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):
This is the passage in the book that mentions Wallachia:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dracula (novel) →
Dracula — The novel is the primary and original usage here. Anything else should be disambiguated. —
Reginmund
08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.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 from Dracula (novel) to Dracula as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Funny. Twobells ( talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
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
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
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)
With reference to this passage in the article:
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):
This is the passage in the book that mentions Wallachia:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dracula (novel) →
Dracula — The novel is the primary and original usage here. Anything else should be disambiguated. —
Reginmund
08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.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 from Dracula (novel) to Dracula as the result of a move request. -- Stemonitis 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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