Talk:Dracula/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)