It took 3 tries, but finally convinced my sister...

[publiusr]

He's busy smoking bigfoot
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/02/23/...lt-vs-bigfoot/

[grapes]

Er, vampires are real. Granted, they tend to be South American bats rather than cloak-wearin' angst-indulgin' crucifix-avoidin' neck-bitin' Lincoln-fleein' Buffy-dodgin' Van Helsing-evadin' people.

Those are just *named after* vampires, naming them vampires doesn't make them vampires, any more naming your son "George" makes him President of the United States. In most cases.

Don't vampires have to sleep in coffins? Or, something like that?

[Paul Beardsley]

Those are just *named after* vampires, naming them vampires doesn't make them vampires, any more naming your son "George" makes him President of the United States. In most cases.

They are called vampires because they feed solely on blood. That's the definition of "vampire". The "named after" argument only really applies to things like the aircraft.

If a bunch of space aliens actually land on Earth, are they extraterrestrial lifeforms, or merely named after the fictional ones that have appeared in films and novels for the past hundred years?

Don't vampires have to sleep in coffins? Or, something like that?

Depends on tradition. Certainly Dracula didn't have a problem with sunlight, as I mentioned above, I think.

[Noclevername]

Coming up next, George Washington, Zombie Chopper!

[grapes]

They are called vampires because they feed solely on blood. That's the definition of "vampire".

Don't they also have to be able to *change* into bats? That's problematic, for actual bats.

Depends on tradition. Certainly Dracula didn't have a problem with sunlight, as I mentioned above, I think.

From the first *movie*, right? Pure cinemafiction, of course! The notion of a vampire existed long before their images appeared on film.

[Noclevername]

From the first *movie*, right? Pure cinemafiction, of course! The notion of a vampire existed long before their images appeared on film.

Dracula was a book first. And the idea that vampires lose their power or weaken during the day is part of centuries-old Eastern European tradition.

The first vampire to be actually killed by sunlight, on film or otherwise, was Count Orlock in the film Nosferatu, 1922.

[Paul Beardsley]

Don't they also have to be able to *change* into bats? That's problematic, for actual bats.

Since when has this been part of the definition? (I must admit, that did make me laugh.)

From the first *movie*, right? Pure cinemafiction, of course! The notion of a vampire existed long before their images appeared on film.

Dracula was a novel before it was a movie - and apparently the title character was not based on Vlad the Impaler. Granted, the folklore predates the novel too, but Dracula was never supposed to be vulnerable to sunlight - that originated in the movies.

[grapes]

Since when has this been part of the definition? (I must admit, that did make me laugh.)

Now that you've brought it up, perhaps we should be quoting authorities. The first one at my disposal is dictionary.com (the first defintion mentions blood sucking, the others have to do with references to extortion, seduction, and acting.):

2.
(in Eastern European folklore) a corpse, animated by an undeparted soul or demon, that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaled or burned.

I mean, that *sounds* like they're "sleeping" in a coffin, right?

Dracula was a novel before it was a movie - and apparently the title character was not based on Vlad the Impaler. Granted, the folklore predates the novel too, but Dracula was never supposed to be vulnerable to sunlight - that originated in the movies.

Yeah, are we talking about Dracula, or vampires? Clearly, Dracula is some creative fiction.

[HenrikOlsen]

Dracula was a novel before it was a movie - and apparently the title character was not based on Vlad the Impaler. Granted, the folklore predates the novel too, but Dracula was never supposed to be vulnerable to sunlight - that originated in the movies.

It's really hard to see how Stoker could have come up with the character if it was NOT based (in part) on Vlad Tepes. Though it's obvious that he didn't have any good sources on him.
As for sunlight, in the novel it severely limited his powers making him vulnerable to other harm, but wasn't deadly in itself.

[Paul Beardsley]

Now that you've brought it up, perhaps we should be quoting authorities. The first one at my disposal is dictionary.com (the first defintion mentions blood sucking, the others have to do with references to extortion, seduction, and acting.):

Well the others obviously refer to idioms derived from blood sucking.

I mean, that *sounds* like they're "sleeping" in a coffin, right?

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you when I said it depends on the tradition. Clearly the ones from Eastern European folklore slept in coffins. The ones from the Mesopotamia of 3000 years ago might not have done.

Yeah, are we talking about Dracula, or vampires? Clearly, Dracula is some creative fiction.

Erm, are you saying the older traditions are not creative fiction? I mean, yeah, there is a difference between tales told around the fireside in Central Europe in the Middle Ages and an author sitting at his or her typewriter. But I would suggest that the effect the stories have on a culture is more important than whether the most influential stories are the work of an individual or a community.

Clearly there is a Dracula tradition. Although Stoker himself drew on the European tradition, he picked and chose what to include and what to leave out, and he introduced a significant number of innovations himself. And although most people know his work through diluted and distorted movie adaptations (most people who try to read the book give up after the Jonathan Harker's Journal part), it is Stoker's book that "informs" most of the 20th century idea of the vampire rules, and most of the variants are attempts to find a new angle to his book (or the many adaptations).

A particularly interesting recent variant was Marcus Sedgwick's novel, My Swordhand is Singing, which ignored most of the familiar trappings of Stoker and went straight back to the Eastern Europe tradition. He included quite a few elements that don't get mentioned these days, such as a vampire's need to untie knots, even if it costs him (or her) valuable hunting time. It makes it sound like they're more affected by OCD than bloodlust!

[KaiYeves]

It's really hard to see how Stoker could have come up with the character if it was NOT based (in part) on Vlad Tepes. Though it's obvious that he didn't have any good sources on him.

I've heard that he got the *name* "Dracula" from Vlad Tepes.

[HenrikOlsen]

There are hints other than the name that Stoker intended him to be the same person.
There are scenes where Dracula describes himself where it's clear he has a past as a feudal lord and more than a passing knowledge about the conflicts that happened in mid-fifteenth century.
Also, in the book, van Helsing explicitly states of Dracula that "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."

So it's really hard to see how Stoker could NOT have based the character on the historical person given that he himself had one of his characters state that it's the same person. Note though that "based on" is not an antonym of "made a complete mess of all historical facts about".

[Paul Beardsley]

Elizabeth Miller wrote a book called Dracula: Sense and Nonsense, which is basically a nit-picker's guide to all the myths and misconceptions about Bram Stoker's novel. I haven't read her book, largely because Amazon keeps directing me to a different book, but I've read some lengthy reviews and might well get the book at some point.

I know for a fact that she's right about some of the misconceptions - specifically, that the Count was seen to walk around in sunlight in the book, and that he was killed with a knife, not a stake - so I'm guessing that she at least has a good case to make for the other things she regards as misconceptions, such as the Vlad Tepes connection. Her attitude and approach is worthy of BAUT - nothing should be said about Stoker or his work that isn't based on evidence.

So I'm sitting on the fence for now. I agree, Henrik's quote is difficult to argue, but I'll be interested to see what she says about that.

[HenrikOlsen]

Another good nitpicking work is Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape which is Stoker's Dracula, but told by Dracula himself.

He manages to make an internally consistent story where Dracula is the protagonist without changing anything described to happen in Stoker's version, though he did make some of the things some people said into deliberate lies after providing motivation for those lies.

And he points out a couple of nasty things Stoker missed (for obvious reasons), including that Lucy died because of van Helsing's blood transfusions from multiple people without prior typing (which wasn't discovered until 4 years after the book was written) rather than from Dracula's visits.

[Gemini]

Maybe for the sequel have a "League of Extraordinary Americans" type deal, featuring Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nikola Tesla.

[KaiYeves]

Maybe for the sequel have a "League of Extraordinary Americans" type deal, featuring Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nikola Tesla.

I'd watch that!

[publiusr]

I still want to see art of James Cagney as Alex from "A Clockwork Orange." He's McDowell's favorite actor after all--and I see a lot of Public Enemy's Cagney in Alex.