Talk:Dracula/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Dracula's guest section

This seems a bit confusing: "a wolf then emerges through the blizzard and attacks him. However, the wolf merely keeps him warm and alive until help arrives." If the wolf does indeed attack Harker, it doesn't "merely" keep Harker warm. Attacking someone is a bit more than just keeping them warm and alive. I suggest this should be rephrased. -95.34.0.173 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. How should we edit it? Give me ideas to help. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sequel

Bram Stoker's great-grand-nephew Dacre Stoker and direct-to-DVD-Slasher-film-writer Ian Holt's sequel "The Undead" is only one of many many so-called sequels to "Dracula." As Dracula is public doman, Dacre and Holt have no more claim to the title of 'actual sequal' than any other writers. I think it is wrong to include their book and no others in this article. Perhaps the best thing would be to move any mention of any so-called 'sequels' to the "Dracula in Pop Culture" article. BoosterBronze (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think at least we should move the external link for the undead site from the dracula page to the dracula undead page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.190.249 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on BACKGROUND of the novel "Dracula" doesn't need to include any refrence to a distant relative of Stoker's attempt to write a sequel a century later. It's irrelevant and gives undue weight to the otherwise hardly notable novel "Dracula The Undead." BoosterBronze (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the information that was in there saying they did so try reclaim creative control over the original character was misleading in suggesting that such a thing were possible. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Draculea

It says clearly in the "Search for Dracula" book, and in Romania, the Romanians themselves attest that the proper diminutive is Draculea and not Dracula. Dracula would be the feminine version. I know this wont change the article or suddenly cause all the books and movies to be re-written or retitled. It is a spelling error similar to the one for Aluminum Aluminium, one that caught on and now we're stuck with it. i only bring it up because it's a FACT and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your information would be completely appropriate for an article about the historical person who inspired the novel and in fact is mentioned in that article. But This is an article about the novel and Bram Stoker named his novel "Dracula." The character in his novel he named "Dracula." There is no evidence that Stoker ever considered any other name for his character. So any discussion on what he "should have" named his character is pointless.

Yes and no. In modern Romanian, the epithet is styled as "Drăculea", but since in 14th century Romanian was written in Cyrillic, let alone the lack of standard orthography, there were various possibilities to write it in Latin, e. g. "Dragwlya", "Dracola", or - AFAIK the most common form - "Dracula". The latter form was used in Latin as well as in Slavic (as "Дракула") as you can see here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socius sociologicus (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Republic of Ireland in biographical section

I'm responding to a comment left by an anon editor on my talk page here. Evidently this editor is unhappy about the inclusion of the ROI in the bio box, since the ROI did not exist at the time the novel was published. Perhaps we can have a brief discussion as to how to deal with this info. I feel that the addition of this geographical detail is useful, since Stoker was born in what is now the ROI. There has been an earlier discussion here, but this didn't seem to address this specific issue. Any thoughts? Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not that am unhappy, it just seems rather historically inaccurate and the edit has been reverted twice on the grounds of concensus has been reached to the contary - that i have yet to find. Is the same been done for the countless other works that have been released in one nation that have subsequently broken away or became part of a new nation?86.4.87.120 (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the most logical way to deal with any situation when a name has changed is to use the name that was in use at the time the event took place and then include in parenthesis a statement such as: "(Now known as...)." My family comes from Ireland. When discussing the topic casually, I just use the term "Ireland." But when I wrote our family's genealogy I used the name that was popularly used by Irish nationals at the time the event took place. So in various places throughout the genealogy you might find Republic of Ireland, Irish Free State or Éire depending on the date.

Dracula's Guest section 2

In reference to the current disagreement over the amendments made to the Dracula's Guest section (made by me), and in response to MarnetteD's queries, allow me to elucidate. Using "Englishman" is more correct than "Harker" because there is an age-old debate as to whether or not the character in the story IS actually Jonathan Harker. There is no conclusive answer, so using the non-specific "Englishman" is best. Using the word "vampiress" is not essential, but it is a term used freely in the Gothic/horror genre nowadays and I thought it was appropriate where I used it. However, the most important amendment I made was regarding the apparition of the wolf to the Englishman in the wilderness. The former description was unspecific and somewhat inaccurate (the wolf did not "emerge through the blizzard" nor "attack" the Englishman). My amendment improved the accuracy of the description significantly, though I too made a minor error (describing the Englishman as being forced to sleep in the forest for the night, which now seems a slight exaggeration, as it was a brief period of unconsciousness lol.) However, I shall see to correcting this directly. 81.178.250.247 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up "The Englishman" usage. However, vampiress was not used in the story and is not widely used in the numerous vampire tales being produced today. MarnetteD | Talk 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are users here who feel that the Dracula's Guest section is written in a "clunky" way (I felt it rude to say, but I thought the section was rather clumsily written when I first read it), then by all means do your best to de-clunkify it with your masterly skills in writing prose. But please do not simply revert it to a former version that contains inaccurate and missing details when I have made the effort to research and amend them. 81.178.250.247 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As the contributor who reverted your edit, I'd like to explain why I did so. For some reason this entry is quite prone to vandalism or haphazard additions especially by anon IPs. I do appreciate that you want to add some more (although minor) detail here, so I'd suggest that you use a user name in the future, which could help elicit a more meaningful dialogue. Having said this, I stand by my statement that your edits are poorly worded: for example, "he is dragged away by an unseen force and rendered unconscious" has several problems both in style and content. To "render unconscious" needs an active subject doing the rendering (if you insist on this phrasing) and "unseen force" begs the question, by whom this force is unseen? The Englishman, the reader, another party present, but not mentioned? This doesn't call for any masterly prose, but for plain English. Since it's been a good while since I read this short novel, I cannot check the accuracy of the content, but I do feel that this section does not read well. Given that it only adds some very minor details, I therefore have reservations to leave it in this way. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not writing a best-selling novel here, but a concise synopsis of a short story in encyclopedic format. Therefore, issues such as "active subjects" and to whom the force is "unseen" seem quite pedantic and ultimately inconsequential. (By the way, isn't it obvious that the force is unseen by the character in the story? Realistically who else would it be referring to? And who is seriously going to scrutinise this in a synopsis anyway?) 217.206.76.157 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Malljaja, whilst I agree with you that the section doesn't read like Shakespeare, I think it remarkable that you find my edits alone to be below par and presumably the crux of what's wrong with the section. Other parts of the section read far worse than mine. For example, "The short story climaxes in an old graveyard, where in a marble tomb (with a large iron stake driven into it), the Englishman encounters..." is a glaring mess of sentence structure that seems to have escaped your critical eye (it should read "where the Englishman encounters (the vampiress) in a marble tomb, etc"). Another would be "This malevolent and beautiful vampire awakens from her marble bier to conjure a snowstorm before being struck by lightning and returning to her eternal prison..." which is far too much information crammed into one sentence. Having re-read the sentence that most displeases you, "the Englishman's troubles are not quite over, as he is dragged away by an unseen force and rendered unconscious...", I do feel that your first concern about the absence of an active subject doing the "rendering" is pedantic - one might even say the absence of a subject is appropriately vague, because the moment in the short story is similarly vague and unclear, as we don't know who or what it is that has dragged the Englishman away and rendered him unconscious. Secondly, Bram Stoker's writing seems to imply that the "unseen force" is invisible to all, so that neither the Englishman, the reader, nor any voyeurs present at the scene would perceive it. I thought this was perfectly clear when I re-read the sentence I wrote, but if users want greater specification, they can always proceed to the Dracula's Guest article, which provides far more in-depth details. I encourage you to have a go at improving the style and content of the section if you wish, but I might suggest re-reading Dracula's Guest first so that you can accurately identify where the problems lie. Thank you. 81.178.253.108 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Because edit summaries are limited let me post here. I archived a large chunk of conversations, some that went as far back as 07, today. I know that there is a way to archive into the talkheader but I have never known how to do this. Thus, I added an archive box template - to be honest I actually prefer these because the archive in the talkheader can be missed with all of the other info that is there. If any of you don't like this and want to move archive #2 into the talkheader please feel free to do so. My second thought was "Do we want to set up a bot to arc--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)hive this page automatically?" That would prevent having as many stale conversations on the page as I found today. I have never worked with these bots so if consensus is to use a bot please set this up with my thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. To archive, you have to create a separate page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JayJasper. Did you have any thoughts about bot archiving? If not no worries and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, glad to be of assistance. As for bot archiving, that might not be a bad idea, given that there were threads dating as far back as '07 that weren't archived until today.--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Films that "include a reference"

I removed the following bit:

The number of films that include a reference to Dracula may reach as high as 649, according to the Internet Movie Database.

I have no idea what "include a reference" is supposed to mean exactly, and the passage doesn't tell me. Is it including Dracula as a character? Or just mentioning Dracula off-hand? Is it something else? This isn't very useful as is. Ekwos (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal. There will be some more coherent discussion of the number of dracula movies somewhere in some authoritative book on horror cinema. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I also concur with its removal. Not all films involving vampires refer to Dracula and there is a distinct possibility that the number in the old info might include some of these. Thanks for the removal and for the clarifying post here. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding redundant, I concur as well and want to add that as iconic as the Dracula character has become, it is now silly to count how many times he has been mentioned by characters in other movies or TV shows or other media, to the extent that it would be silly to mention in an article on rocks how many times the word "rocks" is spoken in movies. As common place as Dracula has become in popular culture, it would only be appropriate to mention the total number of times he has been portrayed, by name, in movies. A comprehensive list could be it's own Wikipedia article (if one does not already exist).

Plot summary

Poorly written. The verb tenses jump everywhere and the overall summary doesn't flow well. 76.10.151.90 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is unlocked. I'll look into it, but you can fix it, too. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Vampire Princess

I believe it is a relevant subject, the Smithsonian Channel is not the History Channel, there is no reason to assume because it's a television channel that it can't be historically accurate as it draws it's finding directly from the museum it is named after. 97.82.229.243 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What we need is other scholars to comment on this persons theory. Anyone can get a theory published or on a documentary. It remains speculation until other scholars comment on its viability. BTW as more than one editor has removed this you will want to read WP:CONSENSUS. At the moment it comes down on the side of not having this new theory in the article at this time. Please do not reinsert it until that consensus changes. MarnetteD | Talk 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dracula's Guest

I am a high school student who has analyzed this story and Dracula's Guest in great depth. With many other English professors, I have concluded that the "Englishman" in Dracula's Guest is not Jonathan Harker, but Renfield. Renfield was the original lawyer for Dracula sent by Mr. Hawkins. But because Renfield went mad after realizing the power of Dracula, Mr. Hawkins sends Harker to do the job that Renfield assigned. I wish that an administrator edits the section about Dracula's Guest and cites my influence in the decision. 14:16 December 15,2012 (EST)

Hi there, but unless it is proven by any source under WP:SECONDARY, it cannot be cited. If you can find a source that confirms this, I will gladly edit for you! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename article to "Dracula (novel)"

It occurs to me that people searching for "Dracula" are more likely to be interested in the character Count Dracula, than the novel. I propose changing the title of this article to "Dracula (novel)", and having "Dracula" redirect to either the aforementioned Count Dracula, or the Dracula disambiguation page.

Thoughts?

- Hatster301 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense, and I support your suggestion. I'd wait a few more days before renaming the entry to offer time for others to weigh in as well. Malljaja (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I disagree with a page move. The book is quite clearly the main subject. Also we have a hatnote right at the top of the page so that those who are looking for the character can get to that article with a simple click of their mouse. Hatster I would suggest that you file a full WP:RFC and/or a Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more input. You might also alert the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels as well. Malljaja it is always good to see your name on my watchlist and I appreciate all you do in taking care of this article. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Marnette, many thanks for your kind words and right back'atcha—your help with the article has been invaluable. Though I'd still prefer a change in subject title to the current hatnote. Your idea to open an RFC is a good one and we shall see what others' views on this subject are. Best, Malljaja (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Prefer to leave as is since the character derives from the novel, and the novel is a canonical work. --Mervyn (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Prefer to leave it as is, as per Mervyn and MarnetteD. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal in theory, but I don't think that Count Dracula should be moved here. Rather, Dracula (disambiguation) should be moved here. While the character may be the single-best-known, as a character in a novel who is probably better-known through one or more of the novel's film adaptations, and also based on a real historical figure who actually had this name, he should still not be treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of "if it ain't broke". Nothing needs to be moved as the book is the primary topic. Film adaptations and the 1000's of other vampires stories since don't exist without it and the historical person was never called Dracula. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You wanna fix the Vlad the Impaler article where it says "also known by his patronymic name: Dracula", then? I was under the impression that the name of the character and the novel both came from the alternate name of the historical Vlad the Impaler. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies Elevenscout. I was going on the info in this article stating "The name Dracula was the patronym (Drăculea) of the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia, who took the name "Dracul" after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431." 1) Since it says "descendents" I interpret that to mean that the name was used by those who came after Vlad 2) I have always read that the name "Dracul" was used in Wallachia and that English historians/writers added the "a". In any case that doesn't change my opinion of the page not needing to be moved. The Op does not seem to have picked up on my suggestion of an RFC. If you or anyone else wants to get wider input I will be fine with whatever the consensus winds up being. Again apologies for any offense my curtness caused. MarnetteD | Talk 06:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Hey, I'm an editing n00b, so I'm not sure about this, but the introduction (short of the word "gothic") is word-for-word taken from the publisher's description given on this amazon page. Is this Kosher? Seems like plagiarism. Hyathin (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Amazon summary was published on December 21, 2011, while it looks like the lead has been the same since before that time. I'd say Amazon is the one that did the copying. But thanks for pointing this out anyway, plagiarism is a problem in articles sometimes. (People still copy summaries from SparkNotes. [Shivers]) TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The intro on this article has been here far longer then the item on Amazon. It is far more likely that the item at Amazon copied Wikipedia. This happens quote often but other sites usually acknowledge that they are mirroring WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

Please change "Dracula has been assigned to many literary genres including..." to "Dracula has been assigned too many literary genres including..." in the first sentence of the second paragraph. (Typo) Folkspeak (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The grammar is actually correct. Thanks, TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not sure why the History Channel reference was removed, but clear advertising for an equally questionable book remains - and under its own section title no less! Does the author hold some kind of sway over the editing of this article? 99.239.72.120 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The authors hold no sway (or at least, they shouldn't). I've removed the offending section. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt and Stoker

Citing webpages about Ireland such as this one http://www.insideireland.com/sample13.htm is not appropriate. Neither is this: http://www.lookandlearn.com/blog/15364/count-dracula-first-visited-bram-stoker-in-a-nightmare/ A scholarly source needs to be cited not a random web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.201.247.157 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no scholarly source supporting the website's claims that Theodore Roosevelt directly suggested that Stoker write Dracula or any book about supernatural criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.201.247.157 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The dubious content has been removed per this disussion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dracula/The Rose" in Template:Dracula

If you have an opinion about the propriety of including "Dracula/The Rose" in {{Dracula}}, comment at Template_talk:Dracula#Inappropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dracula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dracula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Constructive editing

If you revert my edits without explaining why [1] then you are acting in bad faith. Your subsequent reverts, even if you decide to think of a reason for them, are not likely to be viewed as constructive efforts to improve the article. I remade my changes. If someone else thinks there is a reason to undo them entirely instead of further improving the text, then they should start a discussion here. 2.25.45.242 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


The setting is 1889

Where are your sources that the setting of the novel is in the 1890s? If you take the entire logic of "Dracula" seriously, the last note is dated 7 years after the actual story. The novel (written as a collection of pseudo-sources) is published 1897, so the story happened before 1890. Second, in Chapter 8 is mentioned that at August 11th at 3 a. m. a full moon shines. Full moons on this specific day are obviously very rare. In the late 19th century, this happened three times: 8/11/1870, when the Orient Express (mentioned in Chapter 25) isn't even built. 8/11/1889, which is in my opinion the night, when Dracula bites Lucy the first time. 8/11/1897, when the novel is published already.

See here for lunar phases: https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1889&country=9 and https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/@2634135?year=1889 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.51.111 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dracula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

name of dracula

There may be another reason for the name Dracula besides transylavanian. The Irish words " Droch Fhoula" meaning 'Bad Blood', pronounced " Drok Ulla". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppity (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018 / REASON FOR DRACULA NAME

INSERT , name for the vampire Dracula may also come from the Irish language "Droch Fholla" meaning 'Bad Blood" , see "Bram Stoker " by Barbara Belford. Suppity (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

Hi there, I work at The London Library and we recently discovered some of the notes made by Bram Stoker when researching Dracula so I'd like to include a section on this to the Wikipedia page, you can find out more here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte bossick (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.londonlibrary.co.uk/dracula
@Charlotte bossick: Your account is now autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit this page yourself. If you're still not able to or if you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dracula/Archive_3&oldid=1146701475"