Talk:Dracula

Template split discussion

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

"Kretzulesco" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Any watchers?

Hi there. I'm planning to tackle this article as my next project. This is a very old article, and with a long history, and it’s been suffering from dust accumulation for many years now, by the looks of it. Some sections look better than others (Adaptations is surprisingly well-structured; Reception is a scattered mess). Plot will have to be trimmed, perhaps significantly. I'm just checking in to see if this page has any watchers. If you're interested to see the type of work I do, you can have a look at my last project, The Turn of the Screw. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Femme du Pays, hi! Please try and get the length back down a bit. It’s only meant to be a summary. Not all of that needs to be included. The book isn't that long–750 words should be more than enough. The plot isn't a replacement for the plot; it is a refresher, a primer. You keep adding content when PMC and I tried to get it down. I don't want to revert at all, but try and focus on what you can cut. It’s already ballooned by 100 words... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit for length; I'm primarily looking for factual errors. I'm doing my best to keep it short.Femme du Pays (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Femme. I've trimmed it down a little again; if I change something too much let me know. It’s a little frustrating that we only mention Renfield once, but I understand that we do really have to mention him. Jiggle away if things are out of order, obviously -- it’s been a year since I last read it! Thanks again, Femme :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

All done for now, I promise if I spot any more changes I'll wait until 18 Jan so you can work on brevity uninterrupted. Thanks so much, sorry if I stepped on toes!Femme du Pays (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all! Your changes are terrific. I'm going to be moving off Plot now, and onto the rest of the article. I'm going to start with the novel's critical reception. I'd recommend not touching anything outside of plot, because I might end up removing it, and I don't want you to waste any of your time right now. Check in here for my progress as I move through. Glad to have you here, though. The section is looking pretty good! I'll fill in the lead at the end of this process :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback and heads up! The Plot area really stood out for me, as I have been studying it carefully for the last six weeks as part of a personal project. If you ever want a detailed timeline of the entire novel, or timelines from the POV of Mina, Lucy, or Jonathan, I have one! ;) — Femme du Pays (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The page is going to look bare for a few days.

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

Plot - Undead Lucy

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

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

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

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

The Road to FAC

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

What I've done:

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

What needs to be done:

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

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

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

As always, my particular bailiwick is keeping an eye on the plot. I notice that someone has added a footnote about the hunters waiting outside the tomb until daylight to stake Lucy. That is not exactly right; they actually leave the cemetery and return at 1:30 pm the next day (see addition to Plot - Undead Lucy above for details). Could you fix that please? I can't figure out how to edit it myself, but we both want accuracy. Later! Femme du Pays (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Femme du Pays. I've just deleted the footnote—doesn't need to be there. Thanks for your assistance, and hope you learn at least a few things when you find the time to give it a read! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That works! :) In haste, Femme du Pays (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Is there anything scholarly on mental illness as a theme? It seems like Harker and Renfield could be foils in that regard. Harker seems in a precarious mental state from almost the first pages of the book, and seems to be mentally stronger by the end. Renfield, on the other hand, goes from bad (committed to an asylum) to worse (attempted murder of Seward, for one).

No, not really. Dracula criticism has developed along very defined pathways: gender, disease, criminology, race. I'm sure I'd be able to find someone talking about something to do with insanity, but it’s likely to go back to one of those four things. And there's significant overlap between even them—disease is linked to race; criminology is linked to race; all are linked to gender. It’s a whole thing! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

Narrative section - I was a little puzzled by the "identity preservation" idea as written, since Seward's journal was dictated into a phonograph; I don't recall any indication that he even knows shorthand writing. Harker's journal entries from Castle Dracula are definitely a coping strategy though; he even says as much.

This isn't the first feedback I've got that this section is confusing, so thanks for flagging it up! I'll make this section my next priority. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

Okay. I've looked back into this. Harker is preserving his account in shorthand, but Seward is not. It’s just the wording that threw me off: "In common with Seward and Mina, Harker decides to record events in as much detail as possible in the anxious hope the circumstantiality can counter strangeness. Keeping his journal thus becomes a therapeutic act of self-preservation, apparently all the more secure from Dracula's scrutiny because it is written in shorthand" (p. 65). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Crew of Light" - This was a new term to me; it is not used in the novel, and it is only used twice in the article at present. Is it a standard term within scholarly works?

It is indeed, but you're right—it either needs to be mentioned somewhere or cut. It was coined by Christopher Craft in his very influential ''Kiss Me with those Red Lips': Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker's Dracula]. From page 130 (a footnote explanation to the term's first instance): "This group of crusaders includes Van Helsing himself, Dr. John Seward, Arthur Holmwood, Quincey Morris, and later Jonathan Harker; the title Crew of Light is mine, but I have taken my cue from Stoker: Lucy, lux, light." Craft's essay has been especially influential in modern Dracula criticism. If you just Google "crew of light" it should turn up a lot of Dracula. Here's another article attesting to the term and its origin: Eszter Muskovits's 'The Threat of Otherness in Bram Stoker's Dracula'. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Footnote §m - I thought I might be able to help by checking the page number in my 1972 edition of In Search of Dracula. I found the sentence "It was an immediate success," on page 158 (vs 162 in the edition you cite), but it is about the Deane & Balderston play, not the novel.

Let me come back to this! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

ImaginesTigers, I found the quote in the 1972 edition. On p. 156, they write: "Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of the most horrifying books in the English literature. It was published in May 1897, was an immediate success, and has never since been out of print." (emphasis mine). Sorry I missed this! I would fix it myself, but I am really afraid that I'd mess it up, based on past experience. Femme du Pays (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep up the good work-- I fear I might be giving the impression that I'm taking potshots at your work, but I am definitely a fan. I could never have done what you have, so all I can do is cheer you on and give feedback to (hopefully) improve it even more. Femme du Pays (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't worry. It doesn't come across that way at all. Wikipedia is collaborative and the feedback is really helpful, especially when Wikipedia can—in spite of the collaboration—be pretty isolated. Really glad you appreciate the article's updates, and looking forward to making it better! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Plays

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dracula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(Still working on writing up my comments - should be ready soon.) Colin M (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Colin! Thank you so much for picking this up. I'm really looking forward to your feedback! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

First off, I should note that reaching GA is, IMO, a lot more difficult for an article on a significant topic like this about which much has been written. It demands some difficult editorial decisions around what information to include and what not to include, and identifying and summarizing the highest quality sources from a broad field. So the fact that this article is already close to GA status is an impressive feat. I particularly want to call out the introduction as being a wonderfully concise and effective summary, as well as the comprehensiveness of the citations.

I have one non-trivial concern wrt WP:GACR, plus a number of little nitpicks. Though I want to emphasize that none of these comments are intended to be the final word. If you disagree with any of these points (either on their substance, or their relevance to GACR), please say so. Hopefully we can talk it out and reach consensus. :)

My one significant concern is with the 'broad coverage' criterion. The last paragraph of the intro notes:

Dracula is regarded as one of the most significant pieces of English literature. Many of the book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypal versions of their characters; for example, Count Dracula as the quintessential vampire, and Abraham Van Helsing as an iconic vampire hunter. The novel, which is in the public domain, has been adapted for film over 30 times, and its characters continue to appear in a variety of other media.

This is definitely an important aspect of the topic, and I think the body needs to give a little more detail on it. The big unanswered questions I had after reading through the article were:

• How did Dracula (the story and characters, but particularly the title character) become such an iconic cultural property? Was the story an instant hit, and it just remained a major part of the cultural landscape from that point on? Or was there a particular adaptation that represented a turning point? e.g. the Universal monster movies. (And have commentators connected its cultural ubiquity with its early accidental lapse into the public domain?) The article Count Dracula in popular culture is the place where this should be laid out in detail, but I think this article should include at least a brief summary, with particular emphasis on the early history/the effect of the novel itself.
  • Related: How popular/commercially successful was the novel on its release? There is a lot of very good coverage of the novel's critical reception, but I can only find one sentence about its sales: The novel, although reviewed well, did not make Stoker much money and did not cement his critical legacy until after his death. And here it's unclear to what degree this was due to low sales vs. unfavourable contract terms and/or the copyright issue.
    • Related-related: How did the success of Dracula (on release, and within Stoker's lifetime) compare to Stoker's other writing, before and after?
• Where does Dracula fit in with the history of the vampire myth in popular culture? Are there tropes commonly associated with vampires (e.g. aversion to garlic) which originated in the novel? Or was Stoker pulling from a tradition that was already well-established. (The mention of Carmilla makes it clear that there was some precedent for vampire fiction at this point, though I would be interested to know whether it was a popular genre, or whether Dracula had the effect of popularizing it.)

Not saying you need to cover every question raised above - I realize we're limited to what can actually be found in RS, but I would be surprised if there wasn't significant RS discussion of at least some of these areas.

Some more low-level comments below:

• A small group, led by Abraham Van Helsing, try to kill him. Our plot summary in the intro shouldn't leave the reader in suspense as to how the story ends.

 Done

• In the past century, Dracula is situated as a piece of Gothic fiction. Tense feels a little weird to me. "has been situated" seems like it would be more natural.

 Done

• In the "Author" section you briefly mention that Stoker had written 18 books at the time of his death. It would be useful to know at least roughly where Dracula fits in chronologically with the rest of his bibliography.

 Done

• Some comments on the order/structure of sections:
  • The "Influences" section feels very closely related to the later "Composition" section. I would suggest putting them closer together. No strong opinion on whether they should go before or after the plot summary.

 Not done — I like the current structure

• • This is sort of a matter of taste, but I would be inclined to move the "Major themes" section down. Partly because the factual information in sections like "Reception" and "Textual history" feel like they're of more fundamental importance to the topic, and partly because it would be in line with the mostly-chronological ordering that's already in place (since the content of the "Major themes" section seems to be largely a summary of recent academic analyses.)

 Not done - I think this would just be a bit strange. Reception tends to be towards the end of articles. As discussed below, I like the current structure. I agree that there are some problems but ultimately think the same problems exist if we move them around

• Raymond McNally's Dracula Was A Woman suggests another historical figure as an inspiration: Elizabeth Báthory. Would be useful to know when this was written, since the section goes on to talk about it being questioned in "recent" scholarship.

 Done

• If you're going to keep the Daily Mail quote in "Reception", I would suggest formatting it with a plain blockquote element/template (and giving it some context within the prose). The documentation at {{quote box}} says: This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Blockquote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.

 Not done I see what you mean, but quote boxes are pretty commonly used in even Featured articles. See, for example, the recently promoted Sonic the Hedgehog. I think the quote box is useful for when you don't have an image but do have something that might prompt the reader to read the section in question, and this one works for me.

• There is, in my view, a sprinkling of overlinking throughout the article. There are a couple of cases, such as "cottage industry", "parasitism", and "self-preservation", where the text is using a term in its colloquial sense, but we're linking to an article about a specialized technical sense of the word. Other cases are questionable because they're terms that readers are likely to be familiar with and which are not of central importance to the discussion. e.g. how likely is it that a reader will feel they need to check out our article on wolf in order to understand our plot summary? Other examples: biography, solicitor, race, footnote. Edit: Though I should mention that since MOS:OVERLINK isn't one of the MoS sections that WP:GACR requires adherence to, this should be treated as just a friendly suggestion for making the article better-than-good, rather than a requirement for a GA pass. The same goes for the quote suggestion above.

 Done

• On the name, Stoker wrote: "Dracula in Wallachian language means devil. Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning" (sic) Okay, I'll bite. Why the sic?

It just reads very stilted to me, like rough notes ("Dracula in the Wallachian language" would read fine to me). I can remove the sic if this wasn't very clear though

Follow up: I was revising the lead a little and realised the actual reason. I must have briefly contracted brainworms when I wrote above. It says sic because Wallachian isn't a language; it’s a dialect. I could put an explanatory footnote and remove the sic?

Sure, I think that would be clearer. I think it's more conventional for sic to be used in the case of nonstandard spelling, punctuation or grammar. I'm not sure a footnote is even necessary, since it's such a subtle distinction (it's been said that "a language is a dialect with an army and navy") and only peripherally related to the topic at hand, but it's up to you. Colin M (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• When Universal Studios purchased the rights to make a film version, it was discovered that Stoker had not fully complied with US copyright law, placing the novel into the public domain. When was this discovered?

 Done 1930

Just a small heads-up: while verifying the citation for this, I noticed that the Google Books link attached to the ref seems to go to the wrong section of the text - it goes to the beginning of Chapter LVII, whereas I assume it's meant to point to Dacre's author's note at the end. You might want to update (or remove) the link, and verify that the page number is correct. Colin M (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I have yet to do is some citation checks - I'll try to do that shortly and update this if it results in any further suggestions. Colin M (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. I've read all of your feedback. Thanks for the kind words & the suggestions. As you've noted, the adaptations section is a weakness of mine because I'm a literary critic, not a media historian. I've been so strict with the sources I've allowed on the page since I started rewriting because the article's previous state was atrocious. That means I've been a bit baffled with what to do about adaptations. That said, there are elements I could cover. Some histories of Dracula detail his visual iconography: where the cape came from, the white shirt, the red medallion, his ever-shifting hair, all the way through to FFC's film adaptation. None concretely answer much of what you ask above because, briefly put, they aren't answerable questions. That said, I'll give you a ping when I've revised the Adaptation section, because it is very thin. If you look at Talk:Dracula#The Road to FAC, you can see that it’s very much in my mind.

The novel's critical history is not that long. Interest in it was sudden and explosive and nobody really understands where that came from. I suspect, on a personal level, that interest similarly accrued over time, like a snowball, from media adaptations. But outside of chronologies of his visual depictions, none comment authoritatively on why the character has endured for so long. If you like, I can expand adaptations somewhat, mentioning more major adaptations and their influence, but I think beyond an extra paragraph or so, it would probably become an unnecessary strain on the article, especially given that there's a derivative article for that explicit purpose.

Regarding how much money the novel made for Stoker, nobody knows other than that his wife was left with very little. It’s hard to get bold statements on these things for sourcing. Instead, I've included the information throughout the article so that readers can reach their own conclusions, guided by relevant information. For instance, they would see that Stoker's main occupation was not writer (he was foremost a stage manager); they would see that writing supplemented his income rather than being its primary constituent; and, sadly, they would see that Florence Stoker was left quite poor when Stoker died, forced to sell his notes for a pittance (about £200 today). I can't really get any more explicit than that without synthesis becoming an issue.

Lastly, vampires. Dracula is considered quite influential today, but most of what Stoker draws from is eastern European folklore. In my view, there isn't enough on the originality of the vampire Dracula to sustain an entire section on his influence to the vampire mythos. That garlic is novel, for instance, is mentioned in the reception section (derisively), but although garlic has gone on to be a well-established vampiric weakness, including that sort of thing (to me) is trivia and not really able to be supported with high-quality reliable sources. Those are what this article needs, given I'll be moving to FAC next.

• FWIW, I don't think the wording in the "Reception" section makes that fact clear: The British magazine Vanity Fair noted that the novel was, at times, unintentionally funny, pointing to Dracula's disdain for garlic. It certainly suggests that the garlic trope may have been novel (which is why I used it as an example), but it could be that it was an existing trope which was simply not well known at the time, or that the particular way that Dracula's aversion to garlic manifests in the book is unintentionally funny (rather than the aversion per se). But your larger point about (lack of) RS support for this line of inquiry is well taken. Colin M (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I take your point, yes. Garlic's effect on vampires was indeed an invention of Stoker's, and they found it comical that so fearful a threat would be foiled by a flavouring. Stoker likely used garlic because "[f]rom ancient times garlic was believed to have supernatural powers" (Eighteen-Bisang & Miller, p. 73). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made changes for a lot of your suggestions (you can see what I changed here). But I don't think the lead must contain the entire plot, or what happens at the end, for instance. That didn't come up when I took Odyssey to GA, and isn't mandated by the Manual of Style. There's a large section that outlines the plot, and any attempt to distil it for the lead is going to just be highly problematic—"A small group, led by Abraham van Helsing, kill him" doesn't quite work for me.

• I suppose the most relevant MoS point would be in MOS:PLOT: "Teaser"-style or incomplete plot descriptions (e.g. ending a plot description with "In the end the family makes a shocking discovery…") should not be used. To me, the summary in the intro falls squarely in this category, as it so strongly provokes the reader to wonder whether they succeeded in their attempt to kill him. I don't see an issue with the alternative wording you mentioned, except maybe on an aesthetic level, though I'm sure there are other ways to communicate the same idea. e.g. "In the end, Dracula is killed by a small group led by Abraham Van Helsing." Colin M (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

While I understand, this section of the MOS is, in particular, about plot summaries. The lead's description of the plot is not a summary. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to follow-up on this, I've spoken with a few others and they concur that readers might come to the article for basic information without wanting to know how the novel ends. If they do want to know how the novel ends, there's an (in my view already over-long) plot summary just a little further down. It isn't a description of the plot in the lead, really, but something to introduce readers to the novel. That is what the novel is about: the Crew of Light's attempt to kill Dracula, not simply what happens at the very end. I realise I'm being a bit stubborn on this one. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Instead of being stubborn, I have simply made the change. That said, this didn't come up at either Odyssey or The Turn of the Screw. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okeydoke. In the future, I'd be happy to seek a third opinion on questions like this if we're at an impasse. I've been known to be a bit stubborn at times as well. Colin M (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

So leave the Adaptations section with me for a few days. I expect I will have a revised version in place, by tomorrow evening or Saturday evening, which dovetails up with the lead extract that you presented above! If you have any follow-ups, don't hesitate to ask them. And once again, thank you so much for picking up this review. I thought it was going to take a very, very long time to get picked up because of how large it is. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick meta point: I'm going to add some inline replies above, as I hope that will make the flow of conversation easier to follow (and you should feel free to intersperse replies within my wall of text above). But if you'd prefer I not break up your comments in this way, let me know and I'll be happy to move my replies into a separate block (though some extra quoting will be necessary). Colin M (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Regarding the lack of high-quality RS coverage of the topics I mentioned, I have to say I'm pretty surprised (especially for certain cases, such as the contemporaneous commercial/popular success of the novel), but sure, if it's not covered we can't write about it. Though now my curiosity is piqued enough that I might do some sniffing around to see if I can find anything, since I was already planning on doing a brief review of secondary sources. Looking forward to seeing the updates to the Adaptations section! Colin M (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for not replying in-line. The reason I didn't was because of the formatting. Bulleted points and bulleted points indented—I find it quite hard to follow as a reader, to discern the new from the old. So my apologies for that—a personal failing! When I've revised Adaptations, I will reply in-line with  Done or  Not done to each comment.

RE: Success. There are sources which will mention that the novel didn't sell well. In Barbra Belford's biography, for example. Biographies must be taken with immense scepticism because many ideas popularised by Stoker's biographers later became persistent, provable falsehoods. I thought what you were asking for was sales figures. Those don't exist. We can only work things out from context, but the amount of writing required to elaborate on "the novel didn't sell well" (from a high qualify source) feels excessive. I could expand that Stoker was forced to take out a loan a few years later, for example, for the family's move, but I don't know what it adds. The novel was enjoyed by those who read it at the time (as the end of reception indicates), but Stoker did not make much money from it, and his wife was very poor after his death. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - what's wrong with just saying The novel didn't sell well. ? (Or some similar wording) Colin M (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already in Publication, but the source doesn't explicit mention that it didn't sell well—they say it didn't make him much money: "Charlotte Stoker, Bram's mother, gushed about the novel to the author, predicting it would bring him immense financial success; she was wrong. The novel, although reviewed well, did not make Stoker much money and did not cement his critical legacy until after his death." It's a distinction because the novel likely sold fine, but not enough to produce royalties for Stoker. Publishers, then and now, pay a flat fee, then no royalties are paid until that upfront fee is met in sales, then royalties begin. I'm happy to move this to the bottom of Reception, if you like? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I misunderstood - I thought you were saying that if we had an RS that directly claimed that the book didn't sell well, we wouldn't be able to state that fact without having to elaborate on it further. I agree that we shouldn't try to synthesize a statement like that if we only have indirect evidence from RS. Colin M (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources/quotes for cultural impact/trajectory

I found a few quotes that I felt helped resolve some of the questions I raised above about the trajectory of Dracula's ascendance into the cultural canon and its place within the larger context of the vampire myth and vampire fiction.

From the preface of Browning:

It became the benchmark after which later vampire narratives were patterned. This development, however, was not immediately realized until the 1920s. While Stoker’s novel successfully established such vampiric tropes as tombs or “coffins” (although Dracula journeyed to England with “crates” or boxes, not coffins), and firmly cemented the vampire’s metamorphosis into a bat, the real impact (which we shall discuss at length momentarily) occurred, initially, with the Hamilton Deane (1924) and Hamilton Deane–John L. Balderston (1927) stage versions, then, more prominently, with the Universal (1931) and Hammer (1958) film versions.

There are also a couple of small breadcrumbs in the foreword: Bram Stoker died in 1912, before Dracula became popular, and Ironically, this copyright technicality can be credited with allowing the Dracula character to proliferate to all corners of the world.

Miller has lots of stuff about prior vampire fiction (around pg. 147), and about how it shaped subsequent depictions ("So powerful has been the impact of Stoker's novel that his prescriptions concerning the strengths and limitations of vampires have shaped common knowledge of the legendary creature"). pg. 157 for example talks about it originating the literary association of vampires with bats.

As you said, it seems there's not much info about commercial performance of the book, but Bram Stoker: A Literary Life at least specifies that the initial printing was 3,000 copies (and it seems other sources repeat this figure). David J. Skal's Hollywood Gothic says Dracula sold steadily but did not make Stoker a wealthy man[...] Stroker wrote several more books, but none achieved the success of Dracula.

Not suggesting you need to use these particular sources/quotes, but I put them forth as tentative evidence that there is some RS discussion of some of the items I raised at the start. Colin M (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. I'm familiar with these sources, and have two of these precise quotes in my notes! That said, I don't think they're necessary for GA status. I believe the article does meet the GA criteria for comprehensiveness, which is addressing major points, not "neglects no major facts". I've outlined my plans to include all of this in preparation for FAC (below), but I don't think it’s needed for this stage. A legacy section wasn't necessary for any of my previous literary GAs.

"Expand Adaptation. Right now it’s super bare, and should offer a broader overview of Dracula and its adaptations across a variety of popular culture. The bigger concern here is adding either a subheading for legacy—the novel's influence on horror and vampire fiction. Also, establishing what the book originated vs what its film/stage adaptations did (aesthetics and so on)."

I'm planning to make all of those chapters in late August/early September, nominate for peer review, and then go to FAC. In my view, the current article addresses all of the novel's major elements, and the lack of this information reflects upon the poor state of other articles with that scope, like vampire (a soon-to-be-demoted FA) and Count Dracula in popular culture. Adding this information now, when it can't be given proper time, will make it a trivia section, regardless of the sourcing. I don't even believe it needs its own full heading. "Adaptations" will be renamed to Legacy, constituting two subheadings (Adaptations and Influence). If this is a sticking point for you, I don't object to you failing the article now. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think the book's legacy is one of this topic's "main aspects". What broad coverage entails will vary from topic to topic, and won't even necessarily be the same for two books. e.g. the picture would be very different if this were a review of The Sorrows of Satan. But Dracula is exceptional among novels precisely because of the enormity of its cultural footprint.

If you don't want to address this area until later, I can close the review, but it would be with great regret because I think the article is super close to passing! The added content would not need to be comprehensive in its detail - it could literally just be a handful of sentences expanding on what the last paragraph of the intro describes. But your call. Colin M (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Full disclosure: some personal issues put me in a mighty bad mood on Thursday. I think there was just a feeling of, my god, this is so much extra stuff to do, that I already planned to do later, why is he being so obstinate? So I took the day off yesterday for some emotional convalescence. I've added a subheading to the last heading (now renamed Legacy) for influence and added in a smattering of information. It’s a bit sloppy but should be functional. Let me know what you think, and sorry for being moody—I know you're just trying to do due diligence. I've also responded in-line to some of your comments from earlier. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: If this is getting difficult to address, I'd love to help. The article feels nearly ready for FA status as is. Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, HSD. Pretty much everything has been addressed, just waiting for Colin to get back. It's definitely not ready for FAC yet – lots still to be done, but it's been a labour of love and I've had a lot of fun rewriting the whole thing from scratch! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's good! It's a rare treat to come across such a well-developed article as a reviewer, because it makes my job very easy. The newly expanded "Legacy" section is great, and I'm satisfied that the few GACR-relevant issues raised above have been addressed. Congrats, and good luck on the road to FA status! Colin M (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Vlad III, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler

• ... that although Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Báthory are popularly believed to have inspired Dracula, Bram Stoker's notes mention neither figure? Source: See Dracula#Influences; information is spread over two paragraphs.Source:
  • ALT1:... that Bram Stoker picked the name Dracula because he thought it meant devil? Source: See Dracula#Textual history. From Stoker's notes: "Dracula in Wallachian language means devil" (Elizabeth Miller & Robert Eighteen-Bisang).

• Comment: This is my third DYK nomination. The article in question has just been promoted to GA following an extensive rewrite.

Created by ImaginesTigers (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was recently promoted to GA, checks out for copyvio and neutrality. Earwig only picked up direct quotes. The photo is public domain, looks good and is in the article. Now that ALT1 has been edited, it is more accurate. The fact that Stoker was wrong does not mean about the word's meaning that it wasn't his inspiration, just that we should not make it appear like he was correct. However, I am approving ALT0 per the nominator's request, and because it has fewer points of contention. I added sources from the article since they should be included in the hook as well. QPQ is not needed since this is only the nominator's third nomination. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Wallachian dialect of Romanian doesn't really exist, Romanian is divided into two main groups, the northern variant (Moldavia, most of Transylvania and the northermost parts of Dobruja) and the southern variant (Wallachia, most of Dobruja and southeastern Transylvania). This southern variant is divided into more subvariants such as Muntenian and Oltenian, probably the one in southeastern Transylvania is also considered its own but I am not sure about that, but the reality is that it isn't like Oltenian and Muntenian are considerably more similar to each other than with the southeastern Transylvanian variant as to form their own group within the southern variant of Romania, so a Wallachian dialect doesn't really exist. Here are some maps to understand it better [1] [2]. I'll move the page and do the necessary fixes some day. Sorry for so much text about unrelated stuff, but I'd just put "in old Romanian" or "in Romanian" instead of "in the Wallachian dialect". Super Ψ Dro 21:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: The main problem is that I can't substantiate that. Do you have any sourcing to that effect? All of the sourcing that I have reiterate what Stoker said, or simply reproduce it without comment. Don't get me wrong—I believe you! I just can't make it reflect what is accurate because that's not what the (relevant) sources say, so your help would be really appreciated! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it wrong. In old Romanian, Dracul meant "dragon", "devil" is the modern meaning (see Vlad the Impaler#Name), so there's no need to put "in old Romanian", which probably makes the sourcing issue easier. By the way, which source would you need? One saying the Wallachian language he was talking about is Romanian? Super Ψ Dro 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Guys: Vlad the Impaler#Name has a rather finely sourced explanation of the name, which Vlad himself used in his signature -- in short, if probably refers to the Order of the Dragon and to his father, Vlad II Dracul, wearing it. At no point did Dracul(e)a mean "devil" in Romanian, old or new, Wallachian or whatever -- even if we were to assume that dracul was the "devil" and not "serpent" in the language of the time, which is patently not the case, draculea is a derivative suggesting possession or kinship by/with dracul (it has no real meaning in modern Romanian). This means that the hook, whatever it is based on, is lazy and inaccurate; so is whatever part of the article it is based on.

(As a side note: it is completely immaterial to the subject, as all primary sources, including Vlad's signatures, are in Slavonic, not Romanian: but there is such a thing as a Wallachian dialect, and info I sourced the article on Alecu Beldiman suggests that, while fully intelligible to other speakers of Romanian, it had its peculiarities, as in voicing z as a dz, therefore d̦, and j as dj.) Dahn (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I now note it is based on Stoker's own quote: "Dracula means means devil." Guys, this is precisely why you should differentiate between a fact and a report of a fact -- it is easily disputable that Draculea ever meant "Devil", and in any case Dracula in that form doesn't even exist in Romanian (well, it does now: it only refers to Stoker's novel). Stoker was not an authority on Romanian, and he couldn't even speak it; he was probably just parsing the few words he could discern and spelling them the way he heard them. So the "fact" is not that Dracula means "devil" in Romanian, it is that Stoker thought it did. Make what you will of this. Dahn (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Revisied the alt, but I'll say that my preference is still for the primary hook, not the alternate which I'm aware has issues. What "dracula" actually meant is irrelevant to the reason Stoker picked it. He didn't pick it because of Vlad the Impaler; he liked the meaning given in whatever book he saw it in. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Uh, the ALT hook now says "because he thought it meant devil", which seems fine to me. I also prefer the first hook. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• 'Withdrawing' this nomination. I'm not familiar with the DYK withdrawal procedure, so I've tagged the template for deletion. If that's improper, please let me know! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Are you sure @ImaginesTigers:? I can close this nomination if you want, but a Dracula hook would look great on the front page. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with BuySomeApples; would be great to get it to main page. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) and Ceoil (talk · contribs): We'll just keep it going. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you @ImaginesTigers: and @Ceoil:! I have done a full review of the nomination (everything checks out) and approved ALT0. Can't wait to see this on the front page. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Themes section

Is the themes section representative of modern scholarship? Or is it just a band of select individuals who view it that way, inspired by today's trends and fads?.StairySky (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s the former. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely the latter. It's the sort of desperate straw-grasping normally associated with the likes of Amanda Marcotte, and other outrage-starved, IDpol-baiting hacks who write for Salon, Vice and similar clickbait mills. If you look at Dracula, a pale skinned European nobleman of an explicitly Christian background, and see a Jew or a 'person of colour', that's on you. Not on Bram Stoker. If Stoker had explicitly stated that Dracula represented his fear of immigrants, then it would certainly merit inclusion here. But instead we just have the baseless speculation of a few professional whiners. Hell, the real historical Vlad Dracul is admired by the European far-right today because he spent his life defending Europe from his country's Muslim neighbours. Trilobright (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

Re: "Abraham Van Helsing as an iconic vampire hunter."

– Has his iconic status been certified by the International Iconography Commission? – Sca (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is more likely to become a productive discussion if you state your position plainly rather than shrouding it in irony. Colin M (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's one of the most over-used (and misused) words in the English language, so much so that it's become a cliché. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard Time

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

Capitalism

This major theme also seems to have disappeared altogether. 130.157.157.12 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It'll be back! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dracula Daily

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

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

Whether Dracula was Dracula

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

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

Although it seems obvious to you, it is not supported by mainstream Dracula scholars, based on close examination of Stoker's notes and sources. Even McNally and Florescu, who popularised the idea, backed away from it in their later years because they couldn't find clear evidence. Stoker did not know essentially anything about Vlad the Impaler; there is no evidence to suggest he did.

• His grandson, journalist Daniel Farson: "Stoker seized on the name of Dracula, together with a vague impression of the background, and that was all". He selected the name because it meant "devil".
• Another scholar, Clive Leatherdale: "It has always been assumed Stoker knew of the foul practice of the Impaler... But when we read the novel carefully, we search in vain for any reference to the historical Dracula other than to generalised, and muddled, accounts of the Hungarian campaigns against the Turks in the fifteenth century".
• David J Skal, who later edited the Norton Critical Edition of Dracula, wrote Stoker was inspired "only to an extent" by Vlad in Hollywood Gothic 22.
• We know exactly what book Stoker got the name "Dracula" from. It does not include details on Vlad the Impaler (you can read more on this in the article, under Textual composition).

I am not going to litigate this here at length, but it is worth noting this belief is based on years of misinformation from popular media. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that Stoker knew anything about Vlad the Impaler's practices, simply that in his novel Van Helsing unambiguously states "he must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the turk" - this is unambiguously a reference to Vlad Tepes. It doesn't mean the character was 'inspired' by Tepes or that Stoker knew anything about him apart from his title of Voivode and the Dracula name, but it does mean Van Helsing is stating the historical Vlad Tepes is the character in the novel. It seems to me there is a distinction to be made (and is being made by the quoted shcolars) between being "inspired by" knowledge of the historical figure and his practices, and simply using the name and attributing it to the historical figure. Dan Farson's comment as quoted above, taken at face value, could be taken as implying Stoker had never heard of Vlad Tepes. That clearly can't have been the case, because as the relevant passage from the novel makes clear, Stoker knows there was a historical figure named Dracula who had been Voivode of Transylvania. Whether he knew him as Vlad Tepes or simply as Dracula seems to me to be beside the point. 59.102.48.90 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As the references I presented explain, the novel is mixing up multiple Vlad Draculas. If it were Vlad Tepes, Stoker would have mentioned his cruelty; but he didn't because he only knew he liked the name "Dracula". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "Dracula the Un-Dead" and "Dracul"

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

Hi! I think under or at the end of the "Reception" subsection, a further update could be included that references John Edgar Browning's newest research on Dracula's review history (his prior research is cited heavily already). Browning recently co-edited, with David J. Skal, the second Norton Critical Edition of Dracula, which includes a chapter by Browning on on the novel's critical reception. See the following: https://www.academia.edu/50947406/_Draculas_Critical_Reception_Myth_and_Reality_in_Dracula_Norton_Critical_Editions_ed_John_Edgar_Browning_and_David_J_Skal 76.105.100.87 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Hi, could you please provide a summary for us to add? Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Plot synopsis in overview section.

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

By overview, do you mean the lead - the very beginning paragraphs? That's intended to be a summary of the entire article, so it's correct for there to be a capsule summary of the plot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally this section gives a fairly detailed premise of the book. Compare this lead with (completely random example) Twilight. SalTheBear (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It has no single protagonist and opens with solicitor Jonathan Harker taking a business trip to stay at the castle of a Transylvanian nobleman, Count Dracula. Harker escapes the castle after discovering that Dracula is a vampire, and the Count moves to England and plagues the seaside town of Whitby. A small group, led by Abraham Van Helsing, investigate, hunt and kill Dracula." Are you talking about these sentences, in the first paragraph? That is a perfectly reasonable capsule summary for a lead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Should leads for books and films summarise their entire plot? Many don’t, such as the example I gave. SalTheBear (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As I've said now a couple of times, the lead is intended to be a summary of the entire article. For subjects with plots, a properly-written lead should provide a capsule summary of the entire plot. Dracula is a Good Article, which means it has gone through a content review process and is considered to be one of our better-written articles. Twilight has not, so it may not be as complete as another article. But feel free to add a better summary to the lead of Twilight if you like. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think leads should give the premise, not the full plot. The rule you state is not universally followed in Good Articles: Citizen Kane is a Good Article and barely has a premise in its lead. SalTheBear (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are concerned about spoilers, you should know that we do not remove information on the basis that it may spoil the plot. See WP:SPOILERS. Otherwise, it's not particularly clear what your objection is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The guidance you link quite well summarises my objection: “Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.” 63 of the first 87 words of the lead are a plot overview. SalTheBear (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So you object to having 63 words in a 322-word lead briefly summarize the plot and introduce the most significant characters? What portion would you remove? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)