This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Copied over from User talk:Str1977 my talk page, with personal attacks removed:
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve there. And here you are so obviously wrong: your selective citation (you left out "at first") turns her into the archetype that Stoker in fact actively counters. And citing this, this pdf that you keep sticking back in, is of no use also. Besides the fact that "Lucy is gradually drained by Dracula" doesn't appear on p. 175 (I guess it's your interpretation of the "Young miss is bad" bit?), as you seemed to claim, it is also entirely unclear which version of the text is in that free pdf. The textual history of Dracula is complicated, and such free texts rarely have any kind of editorial oversight. So, is it the first published version? The redacted 1901 version? Finally, your comment about "character history" and "critic's interpretation" is completely misguided: you seem to think that there is some easy, clean, "character history" which doesn't involved interpretation. But you are yourself interpreting her when you make her into the Victorian archetype by misquoting a critic. I don't know if you or that ***** IP was responsible for the wording I changed here, but that was pretty gross: that wording suggested she just sat on a pretty chair and waited for men to come to her. If you want to treat a pretty important character of a pretty important novel in that way, you are doing the character and the novel injustice. And I just saw you pushed that foolishness even further, leaving a quote from a critic without acknowledging it, let alone acknowledging that this was only part of the quote. If you want to go about editing articles in that way, ********************Drmies (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could wonder the same about your edits. The issue I have with them is that you repeatedly insert statements of criticism into a section that is supposed to deal with the character's history (and sometimes, as the IP rightfully pointed out, you introduce false statements like that that Lucy as a vampire had sex with Dracula - nothing like that appears in the book). While the article doesn't need to retell the entire plot of the novel, the defining events of the character should be included. And that she is drained of blood by Dracula is basically the element that appears most often (And p. 175 was only one such instance.)
There is another subsection for critical interpretation where all the Ledgers of the world are much more apt.
My distinction is not misguided: there is a difference between merely covering the narrative (sure, that's never free of interpretation) and actual literary criticism, that makes all kinds of observations or uses all kinds of theories (some good, some not so good). Keep the two separate is my chief aim, the other is to avoid the kind of deletionism I detect in some of your edits.
As for your complaint: I did not insert that Ledger quote (I assumed it came from you) but neither do I think it "gross").
Finally, everyone can do without your personal attacks, which I will remove from the version of this response that I will copy and paste to the article talk page. Str1977(talk)19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aw boohoo, Str, you took offense at "crazy" on behalf of the IP. Did you reprimand them for what they said on their talk page? And yes, I can't help but wonder what your standards are if I see how adamant you are about re-inserting that horrible free edition of the primary text. You have yet to answer whether it's the 1897 text (or one of its direct descendants) or the revised 1901 text. You may not think that matters, but it does. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
