Gothic Horror Novel Dracula

Dracula is, in my personal opinion, one of the best novels ever written. I would compare the likes of this 1800's writer to the earlier plays and sonnets of William Shakespeare. Two completely different timelines as well as niches, I know. However, the likes of Dracula can be compared to the tradgedies of William Shakespeare. Give Macbeth for an example. Both Dracula as well as Macbeth had historical meaning to them and were based on actual events and people. Where they are both fictional tragedies they can be traced back to historical events. Dracula can be traced back to Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) and Macbeth was actually based on the historical events in Scotland. So you see, in my opinion both are tragedies. Bram Stoker was the best Gothic Horror Novel writer of all time.

Sorry, but Dracula was NOT based on the historical Vlad Dracula... see websites by Elizebeth Miller for insight and historical fact on this subject. It is interesting however that Dracula may have been inspired by the life of Bram Stoker as indicated byradio narrator Paul Harvey....
I know nothing about Shakespeare...

If you think of the phrase "Dracula can be traced back to Vlad Tepes" at a different angle, then I suppose it's true. Dracula, as in the name not the title can be traced to Vlad. Dracula means son of devil or dragon. It was first meant as dragon when he was given that name since his father was part of the order of the dragon and therefore named Dracul. Stoker just chose the name because of what it meant, I believe. I don't think he knew anything about Vlad at all. Funny that he turned out to be such a terrible person though, huh?

Maybe not so terrible. Count Dracula of Transylvania in the Gothic novel has no connection with the historical Voivode Vlad Draculya or Draculea of Wallachia. if I may digress from discussion of the book to a bit of history to clear this up then I shall. At http://www.knowledgerush.com/paginat...p11_pages.html Burckhart writes that cruelty was the common state policy of 15th century rulers. ‘They must learn to refrain from too wholesale barbarities; only so much wrong is permitted by public opinion as is necessary for the end in view, and this the impartial bystander certainly finds no fault with.’ Vlad had the approval of his countrymen. He refused to pay the Turks their annual tribute of 500 children and so saved in his 6 years rule 3000 children from slavery.
Nobles and common folk were treated equally in Vlad’s law. He improved trade in his country. He kept out the Turkish raiders whilst he was in power. As duke of Fagaras and Almas he was the overlord of Saxon vassals who flouted his laws, supported rival princes and marched in open rebellion against him. He was, in line with the morals of the day, absolutely within his rights as duke to carry out vigorous reprisals against them. In modern parlance, ‘Nobody dissed Vlad!’ A lot of German printers in search of sensational stories to sell ‘if it bleeds it leads’ published made-up penny dreadfuls about a man they did not know.
Vlad’s cousin, Stephen the Great and Holy, the Moldavian prince who was sanctified as an Orthodox saint about 1992, once impaled all of a Crimean embassy except for the prince that led it – Stephen had the prince’s ears and nose cut off before he sent him back to his people. He regularly impaled all Tartar prisoners and worked the un-impaled Turkish prisoners to death. A contemporary chronicler wrote of his style of rule, ‘if he treats his own people in this manner then how can he treat the enemy worse?’ Stephen made bloody raids into Transylvania in his efforts to find and kill his rival Petru Aron. He burned down port Braila on 27 February 1470 and killed every single one of its citizens, including the children. Three years later, after defeating an army made up of 13,000 Ottomans and 6,000 Wallachians (28 November 1473), he impaled all the 2,300 prisoners he took.
However, Stephen got a better press than did Vlad!
There simply is no connection between the robust battle leader of the early renaissance and the creepy bloodsucking vampire of the novel. Compared to others of the time Vlad was not so terrible.

I didn't expect much from Bram Stoker's novel, but I was pleasantly surprised when I read it. It's a good story well written.

Stoker did use Vlad the Impaler as an inspiration, even if he strayed from the historical facts.

Vlad led papal crusades against the Turks. Papal Crusaders received papal indulgences, i.e. theologically speaking dead crusaders went straight to heaven, therefore the real Vlad could not have lingered as a vampire! Stoker must have known this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobbie

However, the likes of Dracula can be compared to the tradgedies of William Shakespeare. Give Macbeth for an example. Both Dracula as well as Macbeth had historical meaning to them and were based on actual events and people. Where they are both fictional tragedies they can be traced back to historical events. Dracula can be traced back to Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) and Macbeth was actually based on the historical events in Scotland. So you see, in my opinion both are tragedies. Bram Stoker was the best Gothic Horror Novel writer of all time.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that seems to have set people off...
I think you're right. Count Dracula is not Prince Dracula and McBeth is not a real Scottish king, but both romantic figures are in part based on the real historical characters, as I see it.

I don't agree with Elizabeth Miller, I think she goes much too far in separating the two characters, Count and Prince, and seems to deny that Stoker knew anything at all about the real Dracula except the name. That is in some of her writings. In others she says that he knew almost nothing except what he found in a single short reference.

I think that although the real Prince Dracula may not be necessary to the story, he is necessary to the plot, using the older formula that
narrative = story + plot.

In any case, I first read 'Dracula' about fifty years ago, and I still remember the chills that went up my spine when I 'saw' him creep out of his window and crawl down the castle wall face down!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McLean

Well, that seems to have set people off...

---

Prince Vlad may not have been Count Dracula as depicted in the novel, but judging from the historical sources I've seen on him, he wasn't exactly a Boy Scout, either. Forget the Crusades. He loved killing and he worked both sides (Islam and Christianity) to gain his own political advantages.

Prince Vlad may not have been Count Dracula as depicted in the novel, but judging from the historical sources I've seen on him, he wasn't exactly a Boy Scout, either. Forget the Crusades. He loved killing and he worked both sides (Islam and Christianity) to gain his own political advantages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, he was the master Machiavellian before Machiavelli was around.
But then, as to working both sides of the street, so did his Dad. And so did Mircea The Elder before him. What else could they do, if they wanted the power of the throne, and had to satisfy two emperors who were enemies of each other?

On the other hand, no one else impaled to the extent and for such flimsy reasons as Dracula. I'm guessing he was a homicidal sadistic sociopath...

After all of these years, I'm still puzzled by some things in the novel, though, such as whether or not he is supposed to have known about Lucy before she sat on him.

Re: Nobody else impaled to that extent..." Some they impaled in divers ways, others they cut up like cabbages and cooked in pots, some they beheaded, others they boiled in oil, some they laid between planks and sawed in two, some they stretched on the ground and broke their bodies, some they sent into slavery..." description of the Ottoman treatment of Christian prisoners. Mehmet Fatih impaled, beheaded, slew etc. tens of thousands to Vlad's thousands. At the age of 13/14 years Mehmet's people nicknamed him 'blood drinker'...
The medieval term 'blood drinker' had nothing at all to do with actually drinking blood, which is a popular romantic misconception of vampirism perpetuated by Stoker. The term was then applied to any one responsible for the deaths of many people.

Here's my input: Dracula wasn't based on the prince Vlad Dracula, besides a few things-- namely the fact that they both fought off the Turks. Stoker's Dracula was actually meant to be the opposite of Christ-- if you think of it, Jesus shed blood for everyone, people shed blood for Dracula. Christ cleared storms, Dracula creates storms. Jesus cast demons out of people, Dracula creates demons. Jesus walked on water, Dracula CANNOT cross water unless supported. Etc., etc.

Goto Thedeadofthenight.com

Well how would you compare and contrast the characters of Macbeth and Dracula? How are they similar and how are the different?