Talk:Count Dracula/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lack of pictures

No pictures? Really?--Willerror 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be a picture of Bela's Dracula & Roxburgh's Dracula. With Roxburgh's Dracula there should also be a picture of his Hell Beast form. Son of Kong

I added a pic of Christopher Lee from the Franco production, notable as one of the only times a film tried to emulate the description of the novel. BoosterBronze (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter pages as a guideline, this page seems very short on images. . I think as far as photos of actors go, Lugosi as the most iconic, and Lee (1970) as actually looking like the novel character are appropriate. I've added a painting of the count from the cover of Classic's Illustrated. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Bela Legosi.... Iconic but very inaccurate and cheesy.... 198.86.11.11 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin

To whoever reverted my addition of an "Origin" section, it wasn't about "Dracula in popular culture", it was about the various origins of the character that have been given in popular culture. Is that not relevant to this article?--Codenamecuckoo 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you missing the original vampire story, 'the Vampyre' written by Polidori in 1816 at the same time as Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein? Polidori was Lord Byron's secretary.¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.162.190 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Expansion

Pitifully tiny article, on one of the great mythical characters! Nothing whatsoever on the real-life characters upon which he was based, and nothing expansive on the fictional character either. Have added expansion tag and called for reinforcements. Grunners 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is more info on the characters upon which Dracula might have been based in the Dracula article. See also Dracula in popular culture. And just to say that though the article is small, just three months ago it didn't exist at all, and there were some editors who wanted to strangle it at birth! I grant it could be expanded: as long as that doesn't just mean witless padding or a relentlessly long plot summary of the novel (for which see Dracula). Colin4C 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted my section telling about his origins in Van Helsing? Son of Kong

Brides

A coupopopopopople of questions: How does Dracula make women his brides? It seems like he just bites their neck, but that is what he does to all of his victims. Any ideas?

Second: Who are all of the vampires in the ballroom scene? Thanks, Quinlanfan2 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Count Dracula

im just saying that if eney of you did not know,count dracula was the first of his kind.some people even think that he is also a daywalker. people also belive that aside from turning into a bat or mist he may also turn into hi last kill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.75.19.162 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Count Dracula was a daywalker in that he was untroubled by sunlight. But thats comon of vampires of the era. the sunlight burning didn't show up until the movies. He is not the first vampire in literature however, as that distinction goes to Lord Ruthven who predates Dracula.

You've missed someone

In the break down of the plot of Bram Stokers novel it lists the heros who head to Carefax Abbey, the list has missed off Lord Godalming.I would edit this myself but I am druid-like in my understand of computums. If someone could facilitate this it would be most appriciated

• edit* I've worked it now and fixed it!! Hurrah for me

Rationale of this article

Just to repeat that this article is about the fictional character 'Count Dracula' who appears (along with other characters, most of whom also have their own seperate wikipedia articles) in the novel of the same name by Bram Stoker. Dracula (novel) has its own article. There is also a separate article: 'Dracula in popular culture' for later adaptations. Colin4C 10:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dracula base name article

A discussion that may be of interest to editors here is ongoing at Talk:Dracula (novel). -- JHunterJ 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bela, where are you?

The title explains it all. You have Christopher Lee here, but not Bela Lugosi? What a shame.

Top-headings

We decided that this was a good idea in order to prevent the confusion between this article and the Dracula article and the Dracula in popular culture article. See discussion at Talk:Dracula Colin4C 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it.

The avoidance of confusion is a good thing. However, making readers sense that they're being treated like idiots is not.

The article now starts (after a disambiguation-irrelevant template):

This article is about the fictional title character of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula

For the novel itself see Dracula

For later adaptations see Dracula in popular culture

For other uses see Dracula (disambiguation)

Putting aside what has already been written in WP:HAT, this seems laborious. For one thing, the second

For the novel itself see Dracula

is blazingly obvious from the first:

This article is about the fictional title character of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula

It's not as if these are too distant for the short-attention-span reader: they're on successive lines. (And of course the same thing is pointed out in the very first sentence of the article.)

Why the need for all this? Why might readers be under the misapprehension that they're reading about, say, later adaptations? [Excuse me for a few minutes while I go away and think very, very deeply.]

Wow, I think I've got it! Excuse me if I misunderstand (I don't have a BA, let alone a PhD, in lit or media studies), but it seems to me that "Count Dracula, as portrayed by Christopher Lee in Scars of Dracula" is ludicrously out of place here.

So here's my recommendation:

• Zap the Lee image.
• Zap at least two more of the images.
• Remove material that isn't about the character in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula.

Retain a hatnote, but simplify it to something like:

This article is about the fictional title character of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. For adaptations and derivatives see Dracula in popular culture, and for other uses see Dracula (disambiguation).

(The details can be checked against WP:HAT, etc.) -- Hoary 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS what I've written above made the rash assumption that disambiguation at the top is a good idea, and reflects only the very fastest of skimreadings of WP:HAT. A not-quite-so-fast skimreading of WP:HAT suggests that the link to the pop culture is better near the foot of the article. A link anywhere, let alone at the top, to "Dracula (disambiguation)", seems rather gratuitous as this article isn't titled "Dracula". If you do away with both of these, you're left with a hatnote suggesting that people may wish to look at Dracula -- to which they get a pointer in the very first sentence of the article. So yes, deletion of the entire disambiguating hatnote seems a good idea.

But deletion of a lot of the other stuff (kitschy Hammer pic of Lee, etc.) seems necessary too. -- Hoary 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the top-headings seem to be stating the obvious, in my experience in being involved with this article right from its inception we have a relentless parade of newbie editors who have, inter alia:

• 1, Confused the novel with the character

• 2, Confused Bela Lugosi with the character

• 3, Confused Vlad the Impaler with the character

• 4, Confused all the above in a seemingly infinite number of combinations

• 5, Altered the top headings in line with their (mis)understandings of any or all of the above.

To prevent these misunderstandings I think that the top-headings serve a useful purpose. I.e. they are not just there for ornament. Colin4C 16:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable point of view. But I'm not at all surprised by (say) the confusion of Bela Lugosi with the character when the article seems to encourage confusion of Christopher Lee with the character. How about stripping from the article material about movies and the like (and also the picture of Vlad)? -- Hoary 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced my edits on the page. There was nothing regarding disambiguation at Talk:Dracula for there to be dabs on Count Dracula, consensus there was that there should dablinks at Dracula. Colin4C is being annoyingly disruptive and is not following proper manual of style, such as WP:HAT. This article needs no dablinks because all other related pages are listed in the "see also" section and nothing related to Count Dracula redirects here. Colin4C, please leave the page alone and do not undo all of my other constructive edits here as well. Lord Sesshomaru

Hang on, wait. He's annoyingly disrupting your idea of how the article should be, but hardly any more than you're annoyingly disrupting his idea of what the article should be. You think that your edits are constructive but he thinks that his are constructive.

Could you both please forget about "hatnotes" for a couple of days and decide what the article is supposed to be about?

I had thought that the article was about Stoker's character. Like them or not, Colin4C's hatnotes said as much, and while Sesshomaru disagreed with their presentation as hatnotes I haven't noticed his disagreement with their substance. But not only does the article have two and arguably three graphics that don't pertain to Stoker's character (one of which is placed very conspicuously), its list of categories reads in part: Film characters | Marvel Comics supervillains | Buffyverse vampires.

Decide what the article is supposed to be about. Add material (images, categories) to it or delete stuff from it accordingly. Then read and digest WP:HAT and implement (or consciously and with good reason override) what it says. -- Hoary 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Long as Colin4C stops placing those disambiguation dabs and quits ranting about some "talk page consensus" regarding Count Dracula (that consensus never happened, BTW) then I'm willing to let it go. Lord Sesshomaru

Use common sense. I refuse to get into a slanging match with you. Colin4C 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest relevant edit is this one, in which Colin4C reinstates the hatnotes in their most labored and tedious form, with the edit summary restored top headings as per consensus.

Nonsense. There is no consensus.

Further, the combination of (i) the instruction For later adaptations see Dracula in popular culture and (ii) the conspicuously placed image of Christopher Lee in a later adaptation is bizarre at best.

But if you two are keen to waste your time reverting each other over a relatively minor aspect of an article that's obviously screwed up in more serious ways, I don't suppose anything short of a WP:3RR block will stop you. -- Hoary 23:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I've been bold and cut out the irrelevant images, the irrelevant categories, an irrelevant template, and the pointless repetition of stuff about nasty old Vlad. I've also streamlined the grotesque hatnotes, which in their present form look pretty harmless to me. -- Hoary 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Been thinking, I'll have to open up a discussion/survey about the dabs. They have to go, they're unnecessary and it bothers me to no end that they're there. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

You ask me directly; OK, I'll tell you directly. The way you and Colin4C keep harping on the hatnotes suggests to me that you're both bizarrely obsessed.

Look, until my last edit (and very possibly still after it) the article was a ridiculous cock-up. Colin4C said that would-be readers about and adders of Stoker-irrelevancies should be told at the top to go away. He gave his reason. You said that they shouldn't. You cited a guideline. Both of you ignored the fact that a photo of Christopher Lee was simultaneously inviting just this misunderstanding. That was surprising, but what was truly amazing was that you both seemed uninterested even after I reminded you of the conspicuousness of these enticements.

I've now removed all this junk. I don't expect any praise for that. Indeed, I'm perfectly willing to be criticized. ("No, you don't understand: the article's for the character wherever he may pop up, e.g. in Hammer films; the dab links were wrong in what they said as well as the way they said it.") But no, not a word about that. Instead, yet more wittering about dabs.

Forget the damn dabs for 48 hours, OK? Instead, consider: What's the article for? Discuss that. Does it give this impression, or might it give another impression. Discuss that too. Then edit it. Then think about these Earth-shatteringly significant [Not!] dabs. -- Hoary 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention about the early history of this article. Some editors found the distinction between the character Count Dracula and the novel Dracula so hard to fathom that they put MERGE notices on this article. This was after a long discussion on the Dracula talkpage in which we agreed that the character Count Dracula needed his own article, like all the other characters in Stoker's novel. But then...new editors come along in blissful ignorance of our long discussion and wanted to MERGE it back with the original article! If we remove the hat-notes I predict the MERGE tendency will make a comeback and we will be back to square one. Colin4C 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's extremely stupid. "Dracula" is about the novel, "Count Dracula" is about the character. Simple as that. Compare Harry Potter and Harry Potter (character). Of course these articles shouldn't be merged. I think pretty much everyone realises that. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the reference to Dracula (disambiguation) is pointless and irrelevant, as Dracula doesn't redirect here. See WP:NAMB. Also, "For later adaptions, see Dracula in popular culture" should not be linked in a hatnote, but rather in a subsection, using {{main}} and summary style, see WP:RELATED. This is a very clear matter. Q.E.D. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Colin4C is inventing reasons to keep the disambiguation. What he should realize is that nobody owns articles, we're just trying to keep this website clean and removing unhelpful dabs is one way to go for it. Simple. Lord Sesshomaru

If you look at the edit history of this article you will see that previous editors were confused about what it was about and inter alia DID want to merge it. Call them stupid or not, but how they edit this page according to their missapprehensions is fact. Those of us who have been editing this article from the start have had to deal with a series of confused edits. As for accusations of vandalism if you look at the edit history you will see that Sesshomuru called me one first, (amongst other accusations - for which see above) even though I wrote half the article - hardly vandalic behaviour! Colin4C 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So should the hatnotes at Dracula now be removed as well? I don't see why its permissable to have hatnotes at Dracula and impermissable at Count Dracula. Also the confusion between Count Dracula and Dracula in popular culture is a very real one. Colin4C 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that what I said would happen if the hatnotes were removed has happened and Sesshomari has done NOTHING to rectify it Colin4C 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Draculaillustration.jpg

Image:Draculaillustration.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Pic?

the Book cover was a nice trey but there's actually a better version of that picture somewhere inside the book. as well as pictures of other characters Tnu1138 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I submited an Image for Draculs article and i'm not sure how to scale it down to size Tnu1138 (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Say Wha?

"Dracula's death is shorn of the rituals enjoined by Van Helsing."

Would it be OK if we changed this into something more practical? I have no idea what "shorn" means, and I'm struggling with "enjoined". I understand it in context, but it seems a little pretentious. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All I mean is that in finishing off Dracula, Harker and co didn't go to the same trouble with the rituals 'enjoined' upon them by Van Helsing - which they had used to destroy the vampire Lucy earlier on in the book, therefore what they did might have been ineffective...By 'enjoined' I mean that Van Helsing told them about the rituals, instructed them how to use them and urged them to use them - all at once... Colin4C (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Acolytes and shapeshifting

According to the article "There is one instance where the vampire Lucy shrinks in size in order to squeeze through a crack and reenter her tomb but it is never revealed if she and the other vampire acolytes possess greater shapeshifting abilities."

Now, to some extent I'm pretty sure this is untrue, as I can remember Dracula's "brides" transfiguring out of dust when Johnathan Harker first encounters them, and I think it's implied later on that when VanHelsing encounters them they also materialize. Now, granted, this is definitely not the same as Dracula's shapeshifting abilities, but it's definitely something, and I do think it deserves a mention, although I'm not entirely sure what a good way to word it would be. Calgary (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Dracula project

There is now a proposed project to deal with content related to Dracula at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory#Dracula Project. Any parties interested in joining should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested but have failed in my efforts to find this project. At least so far. Zahir13 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe if i remember correctly the project was my preposal. i had kicked it off by contributing some images but i couldn't figure how to scale them down to work witht he Infoboxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnu1138 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

OK, I really don't agree with this outright removal. Whether most of these were parent categories or not, they are all a relevant part of the concept of Dracula. Don't know how to put it in any other manner. For example, Ichigo Kurosaki is in the speed cat because it is quite relevant to him, regardless of all Soul Reapers categorized as speedsters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Traits which are true to vampires are already categorised at Category:Fictional vampires.

To duplicate every member of that category into its parent categories is category bloat for no purpose, and is a hindrance to navigation rather than an aid. (Which is the purpose of categories.) - jc37 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about that, adding super strength and shapeshifters seems like a bad idea. Not all vampires do that. Even if you were to include, say, the flight cat, I'd be against it too. Inclusively, why did you remove centenarians and wizards from Count Dracula? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, the ability to fly is due to transformation into a bat. So that's a bit off.

As for what "defines" a fictional vampire (as opposed to the ones from legend), most would seem to be Dracula knock-offs, and have those features/abilities.

That said, ignoring the categorisation question for a moment, a thought struck me that we have the makings for an interesting article here: Powers and abilities of Count Dracula (or some such name).

See also Powers and abilities of Superman. - jc37 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see most vampires in fiction shapeshifting. Albeit you probably see super strength and speed more than the other skills/abilities, it still wouldn't be a good call to add those cats. As for flight, how exactly is it "off"? Castlevania`s Alucard and Hellsing`s Alucard are categorized as such, and I'm sure there are also non-Dracula characters out there. And unless it's going to better a hell of a lot better than Powers and abilities of the Hulk (which was redirected) then maybe a Powers and abilities of Count Dracula will do, but I doubt it will help our case in this point in time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A problem is that often the character's abilities are vaguely defined (if defined at all). For example, I seem to recall from when I last read Bram Stoker, most of the Count's "powers" were not described directly, but hinted at. This is fairly common throughout most fictional vampires.

As for what powers are generally seen for fictional vampires, they're usually depicted as "undead supermen" (in anime/manga, and depending on the depiction, for the Count himself - substitute demon for undead). So they are immortal, faster, stronger, etc. Superspeed? Probably not.

And if you can think of how to name a cat for vampires who can shapeshift into bats, wolves, and mist, without it being considered WP:OC, I'm all ears : )

So in this case, the "supernatural ability" is to shapeshift. It isn't paranormal for a bat to be able to fly. - jc37 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what you say is true, but Category:Fictional characters who can fly currently says this:

• "This is a listing of fictional characters who can fly by force of will (for example, by possession of wings or with magical powers)."

Think it's safe to say that Dracula belongs there one way or another. Just remove those vague categories from Category:Fictional vampires until we find something better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't "possess wings". He can shapeshift into an animal which has wings.

That would be like saying that Garfield Logan can fly because he can change into birds (among other things).

That said, I agree with some of your points (as I've already noted).

So I'll see if I can "fix" my edits. - jc37 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. - jc37 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the edits are fine, except I still think super strength and the wizards cat apply here regardless. The article does make a point of these. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Super strength is listed under the vampire category. (I don't strongly care about that, except that the superhuman strength category should only be on one of the two and not both.)

And "wizard" isn't the right word. In the original text he studied alchemy and "the dark arts". I don't believe that that was ever called "wizardry", or him a "wizard". And though he wasn't called a "necromancer" either, I decided that it's close enough to "dark arts", that it wasn't worth debating. - jc37 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But he is called a sorcerer according to the article. How is that not enough? Does this mean we should also remove everyone else in Category:Fictional wizards who is only called a sorcerer, warlock, magician, or conjurer, or is suggested to be a practitioner of "magic"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The "magic using character" cats need a ReOrg, and some renaming and perhaps merging, at the very least. Atm there are other concerns and so I just haven't done the nomintaions yet. - jc37 03:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Eyecolor

I couldn't help noting there is no eye color mentioned..... Was it ever said in the books what his eye color is? I'm very curious about his. 156.34.181.176 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to your question, I added the following to the article:

I was conscious of the presence of the Count, and of his being as if lapped in a storm of fury... the blue eyes transformed with fury, the white teeth champing with rage, and the fair cheeks blazing red with passion. But the Count! Never did I imagine such wrath and fury, even to the demons of the pit. His eyes were positively blazing. The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell fire blazed behind them. His face was deathly pale, and the lines of it were hard like drawn wires. The thick eyebrows that met over the nose now seemed like a heaving bar of white-hot metal.

— Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 3

I saw... Count Dracula... with a red light of triumph in his eyes, and with a smile that Judas in hell might be proud of.

— Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 4

Quoth the Raven (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

origins of the dracula family/debretts entry

There is some speculation, following Stoker's account of a connection with Scarborough, that Count Dracula was originally a Yorkshireman and the family name was 'Draculathwaite'. The suffix 'thwaite' would indicate a N.E. england connexion such as 'Outhwaite'. Burkes Peerage is ambiguous on this question and Debrett's is unwilling to give a written confirmation. At best, the alleged connexion with Vlad the Impaler is undoubtedly apocrophal and the respectability of the Dracula family cannot be challenged without further archival evidence being presented.Miletus (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miletus (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not "apocryphal" - this has been established in many Stoker biographies.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Famous sayings of Count Dracula

I am very concerned about this. I think that famous "sayings" belong in Wikiquote. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. I don't want to remove them without discussion, as that might be misinterpereted as WP:Vandalism but I seriously think that the quotations have no place in this article. Would anyone like to discuss it? -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"I agree" is all the discussion I think it needs, so I was WP:BOLD and removed it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

As per the tag on top of the page I went through and trimmed a great many links. I don't know if 'garlic' and 'etymology' are relevent links, but I beleive the remaining links are all mostly relevant to the content. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"In Universe"

I tried my hand and re-writing some sections to affirm more to the style guidelines and be less 'in universe.' BoosterBronze (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation Tag

There seem to be adequate sources cited throughout this article. Does anyone agree that the citation tag may be removed?BoosterBronze (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block quotes

Basing my work on other similar articles (Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Frankenstein's Monster, Emperor Palpatine) the use of large block quotes seems out of place, and often merely repeates what the previous paragraph stated. Have shortened some and removed others and replaced with citations. BoosterBronze (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bathory

The refrence for the Elizabeth Bathory comment in "Historicl Allusions" lists many mentions of Count Dracula being influenced by Bathory, but then goes on to DISCREDIT all of those claims. Any suggestions of how this should fit into the article? BoosterBronze (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Transferring the curse"

Removing this here from the article:

One of Dracula's most mysterious powers is the ability to transfer his vampiric condition to others. As seen with Lucy and Mina, transfer of the curse is done through a bite to the throat, allowing the Count to ingest the victim's blood at the same time. The victim is transformed gradually.

This is not accurate; someone is recalling an unfaithful adaptation or has a faulty memory of Stoker's original. There is a vivid scene in which Dracula "transfers" his "curse" to Mina by inducing her to drink his blood. It is not a "mysterious power". It is also not stated that Dracula's vampirism is a "curse"; it is never made clear how he became a vampire, but it can be interpreted that it was by his own hand through sorcery. Calling it a "curse" reinforces my suspicion that this editor is basing his interpretation on an adaptation, and not on the novel. 98.211.124.111 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lucy's blood is drunk by Dracula (but not his by her), and she increasingly exhibits vampiric symptoms (lengthend teeth, etc) as time goes on but only actually becomes a vampire after she dies. Dracula later drinks Mina's blood and forces him to drink hers. I can't quite remember what advantage her drinking his blood gives him, but it means she has a telepathic connection to him (very advantageous to Van Helsing et al) that is only ended with his final despatch. Opera hat (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because the book doesn't mention Lucy drinking Dracula's blood, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, most of Dracula's time with Lucy were not witnessed by anyone else and thus left unrecorded. Although I kind of agree, I argue against your elaboration as to why: Lucy bit and sucked the blood of the children who did not turn into vampires but most likely wouldn't turn undead until after their death. Lucy died turned sooner than Mina would have because Dracula spent a considerable amount of time draining her blood causing her death. Van Helsing Calls this phenomenon of the vampire drinking the victim's blood while forcing the victim to drink his, the "Vampire's baptism of blood" as cited in the main article.BrettWarr1 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

"Dracula the Undead" by Dacre Stoker

Should information from this new book, heralded as the "official sequel" be included in the article?

Over the decades, hundreds of authors have imagined the post-Dracula adventures of Van Helsing, Mina Harker, and the vampiric Count. But the Bram Stoker estate is about to release the official sequel to Dracula, based on Stoker's own notes. Dacre Stoker, the author's great-grandnephew, along with Ian Holt, a Dracula historian, has put together Dracula: The Un-Dead, which Stoker's estate is calling the official sequel to Stoker's original. The younger Stoker claims the book is based on excised portions of Bram Stoker's original book, as well as his additional notes. The book takes place a quarter century after the events of Dracula, when disaster befalls the first novel's survivors http://io9.com/5361879/bram-stokers-descendant-pens-official-dracula-sequel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs)

Why yes of course ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'll add the info once I've finished reading it. Mariomassone (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Dracula the Undead (1997) by Freda Warrington was promoted as the "official sequel". One should beware of publisher's hype in these matters. Lots of sequels to Bram Stoker's Dracula have been produced and it would be muddying the waters to include them here rather than in Dracula in popular culture or Vampire fiction where they would more properly belong. Colin4C (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colin4C and then some, Dracula the Un-Dead may have stoker endorsement but the character is still public dominion. Plus its basis is that a lot of previous aforementioned information in Bram Stoker's Dracula is false (such as no reflections, sunlight now being fatal to him, making him a prince instead of a count, etc). This page's description of Dracula's personality, powers, and weaknesses is all based on what he was like in Bram Stoker's original incarnation rather than all the others (where the differences are extensive with every different movie and book). So I dont think Un-dead's information should be added to this page, or else add all the other versions of him like Dracula 2000 where he was actually Judas Iscariot. Besides at this point the Dracula the un-dead page on wikipedia is extensive and includes all information about the characters such as what Dracula's identity is in the book.Also the notes referred are about bits of plot excised from the first novel not a graph for a sequel. I might also mention that Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt endorsed a comic sequel to Dracula called Harker, writtin by tony lee, that contains a different continuity. 05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read the book, all I can say is that many, many thanks to everyone who agreed not to include it in the main article. I found it deeply offensive to Bram's work on many levels, so consider this a thank you. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Main picture is not Dracula

The main picture is credited as "Count Dracula as portrayed by Béla Lugosi in Dracula". It is Lugosi, but is actually from the 1935 film; "Mark of the Vampire". Images of Lugosi from this film are often confused with images of him from Dracula (1931).

Dracula imdb images: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021814/mediaindex

Mark of the Vampire imdb images: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026685/mediaindex

Obviously, the main picture should be changed to one of Lugosi as Dracula. I'm new to this and don't know how to do this yet, or if I can, so I'd appreciate if someone else could? Some suggestions:

http://goregirl.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/still-from-dracula.jpg

http://www3.timeoutny.com/newyork/theframeup/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dracula-1024x944.jpg

http://www.dvdinmypants.com/features/04-06/images/dracula.jpg

http://www.zomboscloset.com/photos/uncategorized/dracula1.png

^ The above are classic and recognizable images of Lugosi as Dracula from the 1931 film.

--Tonightless (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. I missed the blood splatter on his head. The current picture looks good, thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

I don't see why the article should give weight to one critic's specific interpretation of Dracula, and present it almost objective fact. Klinger made a number of speculations in his volume, including that Dracula didn't live in Transylvania and that he secretly blackmailed Stoker to change the manuscript. Should these be listed as well? At the end of the day, this page could be filled with various speculations of Dracula from so-called 'critics'--that he was Jack the Ripper, that he impregnated Mina, etc.--CyberGhostface (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What you have removed are references from standard editions of the text of Dracula. It is not presented as objective fact but as what the sources say. The formula of academic knowledge consists of "X says that Y is the case". Whether or not Y is the case and is absolutely true without regard to any living human being cogitating on it is a philosophical paradox we don't need to address here, as the wikipedia is not based on orginal research but is a reflection of references given. What can be known is whether or not "X says that Y is the case". Whether or not you agree with X is immaterial - the wikipedia is not a vehicle for editor's speculations but for accurately reporting what sources say. The sources in this case are Auerbach and Skal (1997) "Introduction" to Norton critical edition of Dracula and Klinger, Leslie S. The New Annotated Dracula. W.W. Norton & Co., 2008. Whether we think that what they say corresponds to absolute objective truth is irrelevent (and impossible).Colin4C (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not doubting that there are people who say these things. I've already read Klinger's version of Dracula. What I am saying is, I don't think what essentially amounts to fan theories belongs in article describing Dracula as he is originally depicted in Stoker's novel.

That section of the article describes Dracula's role as depicted in the original Stoker novel. In the book, it's made clear that Dracula is killed at the end. That's a fact. The theory that he survived somehow is not from the original text, but speculation by scholars afterwards--I.E. Klinger and co. The way it's presented here, given prominence in a section detailing objective facts from the book, is an example of undue weight and fringe theories.

There are HUNDREDS of speculations and interpretations of the novel in annotated versions and published papers, such as that Seward would later become Jack the Ripper, that Quincey Harker is in fact the son of Dracula, etc. Why is this one any more valid? Should we include "There are some who believe that Dracula is in fact from Mars" if, in fact, there was a published source that said so? Where does the line end?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Norton Annotated Dracula is a reliable source. It is used as a college textbook. Professor Nina Auerbach and David Skal are respected scholars - not blogging nutters peddling fringe theories. If they were blogging nutters peddling fringe theories why would their edited edition of Dracula be used as a college textbook? Please give me a reliable source which says that they are fringe theorists rather than your own opinion. Colin4C (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point. They may be respected in the field, but dozens of 'respected' scholars have made a number of personal speculations regarding Dracula and it's characters--that Mina is a lesbian, that Jonathan Harker is sexually repressed, that Van Helsing is a madman/quack, etc, etc, etc. (In fact, one of your very sources, Klinger's, makes a number of such bizarre claims) I could likely find a book filled by respected people in the field all making bizarre interpretations of the text. What makes this one specific theory deserving of mention in this article above all others, in what is an otherwise novel-only description and presented in such a fashion as to imply that their interpretations are indeed the correct one to take?--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cyber. However, I think there is room in the article for such scholarly speculations, only in a different section. As an example of what I am referring to, look at the Grendel pageMariomassone (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I think Grendel is a good example of how such an article should be done; a section dedicated to differing scholarly views and a summary of his role in the original text being separate as opposed to mixing the scholarly interpretation with objective fact.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakfast Cereals

I demand this line in the introduction be removed. It seems to me to be an incredible Americanization, and I feel it disrespectful to a character that should represent horror. It may be mentioned in the article, but please remove it from the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.255.246 (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it highly offensive that the crass, stupid commercializing of a figure is referred to as "Americanization." Bad form, user 95.150.255.246. We're not all obese morons over here. The Cap'n (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Count Chocula is an exclusively American breakfast cereal, created, marketed, and sold by General Mills - an American company. Seems like an Americanization to me. And also a valid introduction of the prevalence of the Count himself. a_man_alone (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian and I was raised on Count Chocula (among other sugary mascots). I'm also not obese or moronic. You may argue Canadians are merely Americanized Welsh (though I wish you wouldn't), but we're still technically another country. I'm not far from a General Mills plant, and Chocula is as much a part of my culture as Dracula is to the Belgians (or whomever). So, no, not exclusively American either. As for representing horror, he is kind of scary, compared to Toucan Sam or that bee. What was the question? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess no one actually read the original novel?

Everything in this page that does not describe the character from the novel should be shifted into the popular culture section. Furthermore: adding "The Impaler" to Vlad's name is highly disrespectful to the people of Romania. Seeing as how he is considered a national hero in that country. He was Vlad III of house Draculesti. This was whom the character was based upon.

There are many things addressed in this article (Multiple Weaknesses that only show up in popular culture and not novel or cannon as well as several powers that are not addressed. Seeing as how this wiki is a sad mishmash of popular culture and novel cannon, it needs to be set in the proper manner according to the novel he came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmaxtor (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just an unsupported statement that all Romanians regard Vlad III "the Impaler" as a national hero. He's certainly a tourist attraction, but that's far from the same thing. "Impaler" - for better or worse - is one of the most wide-ranging names he has acquired through the ages.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Travel onto "unhallowed" ground?

Re "He can travel onto "unhallowed" ground such as the graves of suicides and those of his victims." How is that a 'power'? I'm pretty certain I can travel onto unhallowed ground, and that any human (no has victims) could do the second part. 109.145.230.133 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dracula is considered evil

Dracula (not Vlad the Impaler, the actual vampire named Dracula) is (almost) always the main antagonist in novels, movies, live action TV shows, kids cartoons, anime, manga, games, etc. If this is true (like what I believe), why is everyone removing the "and the main antagonist" in the beginning of the article? Please do NOT tell me that they want to become vampires (even though vampires are said to be pure evil blood-sucking immortal creatures of the night)? Being immortal is considered immoral as it would lead to negative consequences (for example, overpopulation). Vampires are also considered evil as they are said to hunt people for blood (even though vampires never die), turning people into vampires, and are said to be harmed or killed by religious artifacts (crucifixes, Bible, holy water, etc), which are good, unlike vampires. So please keep the "and the main antagonist" in the page. Dinosaurus4321 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." As long as the remainder of this article does not describe Count Dracula as the antagonist in Stoker's novel, neither should the lead. It would need a reliable source or two. Ewulp (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is about the character in the original novel and he was the antagonist in the novel. He certainly was not the lead, as his inclusion in the story was only told through the point of view of the other characters. The whole novel is the reference to that. --Beanlynch (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Novel: "Dracula acts on a long-contemplated plan for world domination"?

In the article under the subheading "Novel", there is the line "Dracula acts on a long-contemplated plan for world domination". I don't remember there ever being any reference to a plan for world domination in the novel. It's unlikely that it would be there because the story is told by the points of views of the various characters, none of which are Dracula himself. It's unlikely that Dracula would have revealed a plan of this sort, and if he had it would be a huge plot point, and not one that would be easily dismissed. I suspect the person who wrote this into the article was making an assumption which might have been influenced by subsequent media. I don't make the same assumption and I think there needs to be a citation to the line if it is used in the article.--Beanlynch (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember that either, so I've removed it until it can be proven.Aquilessa (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Powers, abilities and weaknesses

Hi every one, jsut wanted to say that under the powers and abilites section can we make it clear that all of draculas powers are derived from his vampiric nature except his ability to comune with the dead, and that his advanced abilties reflect his postion as the books main antagonist and most powerful vmapire. and that his time in Sholomance is merely infered in his transformation into undeath not his abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicmod (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The source material does not state which of his powers are gained from either vampirism or Sholomance. there are only two brief descriptions on his wizardry, to state all of his powers excluding necromancy derive from him being a Vampire solely is speculation - BrettWarr1