|
Archive-name: paranormal/vampyres/dracula-faq
Posting-Frequency: semimonthly Last-Altered: 10 August 2005 Copyright: (c) 2001 BJ Kuehl See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge [NOTE:The alt.vampyres DRACULA faq may be downloaded for personal use. However, any publication, webhousing, or reposting of this faq must be with the writer's permission and the copyright must remain intact. Citations may be attributed to: Kuehl, B.J. (2000). The alt.vampyres Dracula Faq. Retrieved (date) from Usenet newsgroup: alt.vampyres.] This is the alt.vampyres DRACULA FAQ. Comments, corrections, additions to this FAQ should be directed to the newsgroup. For other versions of alt.vampyres faqs, consult the faq archives on the HoMePaGe of the newsgroup at http://altvampyres.com/ Last altered: 8 March 2004: Added additional wrong spellings (Teppes, Zeppes) of Vlad Tepes to 2.02. 1 July 2003: General editing. No major changes. 17 April 2003: Eliminated old 1.03 re: versions of the faq. Updated websites and newsgroups [4.01-4.06]. FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on alt.vampyres about Dracula CONTENTS - PART 1: FAQs ABOUT THE ALT.VAMPYRES NEWSGROUP [1.01] What is the alt.vampyres newsgroup about? [1.02] Is there some form of netiquette I should follow if I post? [1.03] Is there a homepage for the alt.vampyres newsgroup? PART 2: FAQs ABOUT THE VOIVODE VLAD "TEPES" DRACULA [2.01] Is it true that Stoker based _Dracula_ on Vlad Tepes because Tepes liked to impale his enemies and drink their blood? [2.02] I've seen Vlad the Impaler's name spelled many different ways--Tepes, Tsepes, Tsepesh, Teppes, Zeppes. Which is correct? PART 3: FAQs ABOUT BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA [3.01] How did Stoker come up with the name "Dracula"? [3.02] Did Stoker ever write a sequel to _Dracula_? [3.03] In which year were the events in _Dracula_ supposed to have taken place? [3.04] What was the name of the ship in _Dracula_? [3.05] How was Dracula finally destroyed? [3.06] Why didn't Lucy turn to dust when she was destroyed? [3.07] Why did it take both staking AND decapitation to destroy Lucy and the three vampiresses? [3.08] If the undead cannot be killed except by staking and decapitating them, how is is that Dracula was destroyed by two perfectly normal knives? [3.09] What is St George's Day? [3.10] If St George's Eve is 22 April, why is Jonathan's diary entry for 4 May? [3.11] Who is Arminius? Is he a real person? [3.12] On what vampire story did Stoker base _Dracula_? PART 4: MISCELLANEOUS DRACULA STUFF [4.01] Do you know of any good websites about Dracula? [4.02] Where can I get a copy of the BBC version of "Dracula" starring Louis Jourdan? PART 5: WHO HAS HELPED TO MAKE THIS FAQ POSSIBLE? PART 1: FAQ ABOUT THE ALT.VAMPYRES NEWSGROUP [1.01] What is the alt.vampyres newsgroup about? Alt.vampyres is for the discussion of vampire lore in any culture, ancient or modern. The group is also for the discussion of vampires in fiction, such as novels, stories, poetry, comics, movies and television, as well as for sharing original vampire fiction. Finally, alt.vampyres is a place for the discussion of theories about biology, psychology, and sociology with respect to the legendary vampire. [1.02] Is there some form of netiquette I should follow if I post? It is not the purpose of the a.v VAMPIRE LITERATURE faq to be a primer for Usenet or newsgroup etiquette. If you are interested in that, search out one of the newuser newsgroups, e.g. news.newusers.questions. For a quick look at how to post to alt.vampyres, see the Posting Guideline which is posted to the newsgroup at the beginning of each week. In truth, if you join in with the same friendliness and respect you would give to any group of people engaged in conversation, you'll be fine. [1.03] Is there a homepage for the alt.vampyres newsgroup? There certainly is. The alt.vampyres homepage http://altvampyres.com was created by DrLucadra when she was the faqkeeper between 1996 and 1998. After a two year medical absence during which she literally died three times, DrLuc returned to a.v. and redesigned the site, reviving the newsgroup's homepage as our place, that is, belonging just to the newsgroup. Here you will find copies of other a.v. faqs, hard-to-find pre-20th century vampire stories, vampire puzzles and poetry, a Dracula quiz, MSTings of bad vampire movies, and a huge number of links to other vampire websites. PART 2: FAQs ABOUT THE VOIVODE VLAD ^TEPES^ DRACULA [2.01] Is it true that Stoker based _Dracula_ on Vlad Tepes because Tepes liked to impale his enemies and drink their blood? The connection between the Count Dracula of Stoker's novel and the historical Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) has been greatly overstated. It is often stated that Vlad was the "inspiration" for Stoker's novel or that the character Dracula was "based" on Vlad. This is mere speculation and cannot be supported by documentary evidence. This is what we do know. Bram Stoker started working on his novel before he ever encountered the name "Dracula". He had originally intended to name his vampire "Count Wampyr". But in the summer of 1890, while he was vacationing in Whitby, he came across a book by William Wilkinson titled _An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia_ (1820). In this book there was a short section about a 15th century Wallachian voivode [prince/warlord] named Dracula who crossed the Danube River and fought against the Turks. The excerpt contains little information about Dracula (e.g., there is no reference to his name being Vlad and nothing about his impalements and other atrocities). In fact, Wilkinson confuses Dracula and his father (Vlad Dracul). But Wilkinson does add a footnote indicating that "'Dracula' in the Wallachian language means 'devil'." Stoker copied this into his Notes for Dracula, which suggests that this was probably why he chose the name. The brief references in Wilkinson's book are the only known sources of information that Stoker had about the historical Dracula. Everything else is speculation. For example, there is no evidence that Stoker did any further research on Vlad; there is nothing to indicate that he read any of the 15th century manuscripts or ever saw a portrait of Vlad; there is nothing to prove that anyone (such as Arminius Vambery) told him a single thing about Vlad. It is highly unlikely, given his source material, that he even knew that the historical Dracula was named Vlad. And he certainly knew nothing about Vlad Dracula's castle at Poenari, the location of which was not revealed to the world until 1972. It is also important to note that there were never any stories or legends connecting Vlad the Impaler with vampires. There is no evidence at all to support the story that Vlad actually drank the blood of his victims. Even though the connection between the two Draculas has been greatly exaggerated, the fact that there was a real Dracula has increased the general interest in the fictional Count of Stoker's novel. [w/b Elizabeth Miller] [2.02] I've seen Vlad the Impaler's name spelled many different ways-- Tepes, Tsepes, Tsepesh, Teppes, Zeppes. Which is correct? The spelling is "Tepes". The problem is that in Romanian, there is a cedilla under the "T" (indicating its pronunciation as "Ts") and one under the "s" (indicating its pronunciation as "sh"). So "Tsepesh" is an attempt to spell it as it sounds rather than as it looks. BTW, Vlad Dracula never used the name Tepes. That was a nickname bestowed upon him by the Turks. Vlad's family name was Basarab. [w/b Elizabeth Miller] PART 3: FAQs ABOUT BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA [3.01] How did Stoker come up with the name "Dracula"? The name of the mythical Dracula comes from a real person, known to the world as Vlad Tepes, or Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was voivode (prince and warlord) of Wallachia (a province of Romania) during the 1400s. Vlad's father, Vlad II, was a knight of the Order of the Dragon and so took for himself the name "Dracul." As the son of Vlad II Dracul, Vlad III became known as Vlad Dracula (son of Dracul). In modern Romanian, "drac" means "devil". "Dracul" means "the devil" (the suffix -ul is the definite article). However, the original meaning of "drac", as noted above, was "dragon" from the Latin "draconis" or "draco." The connection of the Romanian "drac" with the Latin "drac" comes from the fact that Romanian is actually a Latin-based language related to other Romance languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. The later meaning of "devil" probably derives from the medieval association of the devil with the image of the dragon, as in St George slaying the dragon. Stoker found the name "Dracula" in an 1820 book about Romania. The author noted that the name in Romanian meant "devil" (which is probably why Stoker selected it for his Count Wampyr). So, by that time the meaning had moved from "dragon" to "devil". There is no evidence that Stoker knew anything about the Order of the Dragon or that one of the Draculas referred to in the book was actually Vlad ^Tepes^ Dracula, notorious for his atrocities. But that's another story [q.v. 2.01]. [3.02] Did Bram Stoker ever write a sequel to _Dracula_? No, although his wife did publish his short story "Dracula's Guest", which some say was the original first chapter in the novel [this is being debated]. A copy of "Dracula's Guest" can be downloaded from the alt.vampyres homepage [q.v. 1.03]. You'll be happy to know, however, that other authors have added to the storyline with prequels, sequels, retellings and alternative timelines. See the alt.vampyres VAMPIRE LITERATURE faq for a list. [3.03] In which year were the events in _Dracula_ supposed to have taken place? Stoker began the outline of his novel in March 1890 and finished it in April 1896. _Dracula_ was published in 1897. Unfortunately, the novel itself yields few dates from which to build a timeline. In the endnote, for example, Jonathan writes "Seven years ago we all went through the flames." Considering that publication of the novel was in 1897, that dates the events as 1890. However, Mina's journal for 1st August mentions George Canon's tombstone dated July 29, 1873 and notes that Mr. Swales has used it as a seat for "nigh twenty years", which puts events around 1893. That, of course, means that Jonathan wrote the endnote 'nigh' three years--not seven--after the novel was printed! Based on the fact that Stoker's own notes show him to be obsessive about details, attempts have been made to date the events by his references to train schedules, shipping schedules, and even the phases of the moon. For example, using descriptions of the moon given in the characters' journals, Leonard Wolf, in _The Annotated Dracula_ assigned the events to 1887. But a.v.'s own Bill Thompson also tried to date the events by comparing the phases of the moon against an astronomical program. No credible matches came up, not without assuming that the moon jumped around in its orbit. Stoker seems to have a full moon in the sky whenever someone needed the light. Fortunately, there are a few items in the book that help to pinpoint a possible year. First, there's mention of the Orient Express in Harker's diary entry for 15 October. The Orient Express went into service in 1883. Mina's mention of the 'New Woman' is based on a term which was apparently coined in 1893 in the feminist newspaper _The Woman's Herald_. Dr. Seward's diary entry for 26 September has Van Helsing lamenting the death of "the great Charcot" (referring to Dr. Jean Martin Charcot, a French physician whose studies included hypnotism). The Encyclopedia Britannica puts Charcot's death on 16 August 1893. Moreover, Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu in _The Essential Dracula_ refer to Stoker's notes which mention "May 2, Tuesday; May 7, Sunday; May 9; Tuesday; May 10, Wednesday" [snip two more lines of dates and weekdays]. After consulting _Whitaker's Almanac_ for 1893, they found that these dates/days of the week coincide with that year. Elizabeth Miller corroborates these dates and, in her book _Dracula: Sense & Nonsense_, she notes that 21 September (the day of Mr. Hawkins's funeral) is a Thursday, as it was in 1893. From the evidence above, it appears that Stoker used 1893, certainly no earlier, to sort out the timeline for his story. Of course, this means that the endnote was indeed added three years after the book was printed. What must be remembered is that _Dracula_ is a fictional story and need not be tied too closely to literal reality in terms of dates or consistency. [3.04] What was the name of the ship in _Dracula_? Actually, there were two ships. The one that brought Dracula to Whitby was named the Demeter. The one that took Dracula from London back to Varna was called the Czarina Catherine. An interesting aside is that the picture Stoker portrays of the landing of the Demeter in Whitby harbor is based on an actual October 1885 grounding in the Whitby harbor of a Russian schooner named the Dimitry. We know this because it's recorded in Stoker's working notes for _Dracula_. [3.05] How was Dracula finally destroyed? Dracula has been destroyed in the movies by a wide variety of methods, from frying to a crisp in the sunlight to being impaled on a cross. His destruction in the novel was nowhere near as dramatic. Lying in his earthbox, Dracula was being transported back to his castle by his faithful gypsies with the Englishmen hot in pursuit. Jonathan managed to fling the box to the ground, and he and Quincey used their knives to pry open the lid just as the sun set below the horizon, leaving no time for Van Helsing to open his bag, remove stake and hammer, and do it traditionally. As Dracula prepared to rise, Quincey desperately plunged his bowie knife through Dracula's heart while Jonathan sheared through his throat with his Kukri knife. Almost immediately, Dracula's body crumbled into dust. In that same instance, the burn on Mina's forehead also disappeared. [3.06] Why didn't Lucy turn to dust when she was destroyed? The three vampiresses also turned to dust when van Helsing destroyed them. Van Helsing gives the following explanation: "...hardly had my knife severed the head of each, before the whole body began to melt away and crumble into its native dust, as though the death that should have come centuries agone had at last assert himself and say at once loud 'I am here!'" [van Helsing's memo, dated 5 November] This has been taken to mean that a vampire's body, at its destruction, reverts to the state expected had it decomposed naturally. Lucy had only recently died, so her body would still look fresh. Dracula and his vampiresses were several centuries old. The fact that their bodies turned to dust is simply evidence of their advanced age. [3.07] Why did it take both staking AND decapitation to destroy Lucy and the three vampiresses? In traditional vampire lore, the stake through the heart doesn't kill a vampire. It merely serves to hold the vampire in place so that other means of destruction, such as decaptitation, can be performed without having to worry about the vampire escaping or changing form. However, Lucy and the vampiresses were dispatched during the daylight hours while lying helplessly in their coffins, so why bother staking them? Stoker seems to have invented another reason for the staking--that of releasing their souls. This is evidenced prior to Lucy's staking, when Van Helsing explains that, through staking, "the soul of the poor lady whom we love shall again be free." He then asks if there is one among them who will "strike the blow that sets her free." Arthur is chosen, and he drives the stake through Lucy's heart. After her writhing and quivering ceases, but before Van Helsing starts the beheading, they look upon her body "as we had seen her in her life," and Van Helsing says, "No longer she is the devil's Un-Dead. She is God's true dead, whose soul is with Him!" Only then does Van Helsing cut off Lucy's head and fill her mouth with garlic which presumably serves to destroy the physical body so that it can never again rise as a vampire. [3.08] If the undead can't be killed except by staking and decapitating them, how is it that Dracula was destroyed by two perfectly normal knives? Stoker (as Van Helsing) mentions other ways of destroying a vampire, such as removing the heart or firing a blessed bullet into the coffin. But the destruction of Dracula [q.v. 3.05] is one inconsistency in the novel that has fueled many lengthy discussions. Several explanations have been offered. One is that Stoker was rushing to finish the novel, which was written and rewritten over a 6-7 year period, and his editing simply suffered at the end. Elizabeth Miller addresses this and other inconsistencies in the novel in her book in _Dracula: Sense and Nonsense_, suggesting that Stoker might have benefitted from a good editor. A second explanation is that Dracula wasn't really dead because Stoker was planning a sequel. He only allowed us to believe that Dracula had turned to dust when actually he had simply transformed himself into dust to elude total destruction by Van Helsing et al. Fred Saberhagen seized this idea and used it in _The Dracula Tape_. There is no evidence, however, in Stoker's writing notes to suggest that he was intending a sequel. It seems pretty clear that he meant for Dracula to be destroyed because the burn on Mina's forehead disappeared; so, the curse of Dracula had passed away. Assuming, however, that Stoker was not a careless writer nor was he planning a sequel and that Dracula's death was exactly the way Stoker intended it, how might it be explained that the great and powerful Dracula was dispatched with mere bowie and Kukri knives, especially after Van Helsing's speech about a vampire being killed only by such traditional methods as staking and decapitation? Some literary critics, after describing the orgiastic deaths of Lucy and the vampiresses, speculate that such a death committed on a male by a male would have been taboo in Victorian England. Others argue that Dracula could only have been killed with weapons emblematic of British imperialism rather than with a simple wooden stake. The simplest explanation seems to be that Stoker's description of Jonathan's knife "shear[ing] through the throat" meant to imply that Dracula was indeed decapitated, even though Stoker's choice of words was a bit ambiguous. Ambiguous or not, taboo or not, sequel or not, the fact still remains that Stoker constructed Dracula's death in a manner different from that of tradition. Did he do so in order to be more dramatic? Consider the the conditions of Dracula's death. He was destroyed at the exact moment the sun set below the horizon. He was no longer helpless, as were the vampiresses and Lucy, even though he still lay in his earthbox. But he had to be destroyed NOW, while still trapped between his day limits and his night powers. If not, all was for naught--Mina was lost, and there would be no salvation for those who were pursuing him. Dracula would have won. The men were desperate. Perhaps Quincey remembered the driving of a stake through Lucy's heart and so instinctively drove his bowie knife into Dracula's. And perhaps Jonathan sheared through Dracula's throat in a desperate attempt to behead him, just as Jonathan had seen Van Helsing do to Lucy. Perhaps these two actions sufficently mimicked the traditional way of killing a vampire. Or perhaps Stoker meant to imply that vampires are not necessarily bound by the old traditions? Or maybe Quincey's bowie knife through Dracula's heart served to release his immortal soul, returning his body to its mortal state so that slitting his throat with Jonathan's knife was all it took to destroy the king of the vampires? Unfortunately, we may never know the truth about why Stoker created a different demise for Dracula, one that did not follow tradition. This will likely remain one of the great mysteries of the novel. [3.09] What is St George's Day? In Jonathan's diary entry for 4 May, he tells about a hysterical old lady who comes to his room just as he's leaving for Castle Dracula. She asks: "Do you know what day it is?" He answers that it's the 4th of May. She agrees but goes on to explain that it's also the eve of St George's Day, and asks him: "Do you not know that to-night, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?" St George was a Christian martyr who lived in the 3rd century. In 1222, the Council of Oxford set the feast of St George on 23 April. Stoker's source for his information about St George's eve was Emily Gerard's "Transylvanian Superstitions" (1885). "Perhaps the most important date of the year is St George's, the 23rd of April," she writes. "...the Eve of which is still frequently kept by occult meetings taking place at night in lonely caverns or within ruined walls, and where all ceremonies usual to the witches' sabbath are put into practice." Agnes Murgoci wrote in "The Vampire in Roumania" (1927) that it was generally believed that vampires, witches, and other nasties walk the earth from St Andrew's Eve (30 November) to St George's Day. After St George's Day, they have no power "because flowers and the holy sweet basil begin to grow, and this shows that the power of God is increasing." Murgoci describes how, on St George's Eve, all windows, keyholes, doors, and even cows must be rubbed down with garlic to keep away vampires. Furniture should be overturned so that vampires cannot ask a chair or pot to open the door for them. You should put your shirt on inside out and sleep with your feet where your head usually is so that, should a vampire gain entrance, it won't be able to find you. The best thing is not to sleep at all but to stay up till cockcrow telling stories, because vampires cannot approach when you are telling stories. [3.10] If St George's Eve is 22 April, why is Jonathan's diary entry for 4 May? This is because the two major calendars in use in Europe in the 1890s-- the Julian and Gregorian calendars--were out of whack with each other. Although both calendars were based on 12 months, each with 30 or 31 days except for February which has 28 days, 29 in a leap year, the Julian calendar (which was set to use by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE), was based on a year of 365.25 days, while the true revolution of the earth around the sun takes only 365.2422 days. That might not seem like a big problem, but look at it like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 J-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- G------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 If the J line stands for the Julian calendar which is just slightly longer than real time (G line), it's easy to see how, over a period of thousands of years, the Julian calendar will come to lag behind real time. In fact, by 1582, the Julian calendar was 10 days behind. So Pope Gregory XIII ordained that, in order to catch up to real time, October 5-14 be cancelled. Thus, Thursday, 4 Oct 1582 was followed by Friday, 15 Oct 1582. That, and a few other revisions (i.e., centesimal years such as 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, etc. are leap years only if divisible by 400), heralded the birth of the Gregorian calendar. Although the Catholic states of Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, France, Luxembourg, and parts of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands) adopted the Gregorian calender almost immediately, the rest of the world was not quite so accomodating. Britain, for example, held out until 1752. By then, the error had grown to 11 days, so 3-13 September 1752 were cancelled. British people went to bed on Wednesday, 2 Sep 1752 and woke up on Thursday, 14 Sep 1752. (And don't think they didn't complain royally about being robbed of 11 days of their lives! :) Eastern Europe didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until after 1912. So, when Jonathan went to Transylvania in the 1890s, his Gregorian calendar was 11 days ahead of the Transylvanian (Julian) calendar. Note, however, that the feast day of St George falls on 23 April regardless of the calendar being used. It is incorrect to say that St George's Eve falls on 4 May in England. Had Jonathan celebrated St George's Day in England, he would have done so on 23 April. It's just that, in the 1890s, the Gregorian calendar of an Englishman traveling in Romania would be 11 days ahead of the Julian calendar in use in Romania. The fact that the old Romanian lady agrees with Jonathan when he says it is May 4th is probably more evidence of some bad writing or editing on Stoker's part. She should have been confused by, not in agreement with, Jonathan's response because, for her, it was still April 22nd. [3.11] Who is Arminius? Is he a real person? Van Helsing refers to Arminius in Mina's journal, 30 Sept., when he says that he got his information about vampires from his "friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University." In real life, Stoker really knew an academic named Arminius Vambery. Vambery was a Hungarian ethnographer of the peoples of Central Asia. From Stoker's writings, we know that he met the real Arminius on at least two occasions--in London on 30 April 1890 and about two years later in Dublin. McNally & Florescu state that Stoker corresponded with Vambery in the course of researching _Dracula_ and that Vambery was his source of detail about Vlad the Impaler. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Stoker mentions both of these meetings in his book _Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving_ (1906) and even highlights what was discussed at them. Nothing about vampires, Dracula, or Transylvania. (Of course they may have talked about these things, but there is nothing to indicate that they did.) Furthermore, Vambery's voluminous writings contain not a single reference to either vampires or Vlad. The probability is that the relationship between Arminius Vambery and "my friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University" is approximately that of Dracula and Vlad ^Tepes^ Dracula. That is, Stoker took the name and some cursory facts from his biography, and that was it. [written in part by Elizabeth Miller and Arminius of a.v.] [3.12] On what vampire story did Stoker base _Dracula_? It is unknown from where Stoker got his inspiration for _Dracula_. Certainly there were a great number of vampire stories which had already been published and which Stoker may or may not have read. Some of the more popular vampire stories already in circulation before Stoker began writing his novel include (but are not limited to) the following: c1815 "The Bride of the Grave" by Johann Ludwig Tieck 1816 "The Vampire" by John Stagg (poem) 1819 "The Vampyre" by John Polidori 1819 _Lord Ruthven ou les Vampires_ by Berard (said to be the first vampire novel) 1820 "Wake Not the Dead" attributed to Johann Ludwig Tieck 1828 "The Skeleton Count, or the Vampire Mistress" by Elizabeth Grey 1830 "The Dead Lover" by Theophile Gautier 1845 _Varney the Vampyre, or, the Feast of Blood_ by James Malcolm Rymer 1860 "The Mysterious Stranger", anonymous 1860 "The Cold Embrace" by Mary Elizabeth Braddon 1872 "Carmilla" by J. Sheridan Le Fanu 1884 "The Family of the Vourdalak" by Alexis Tolstoy 1887 "The Horla" by Guy de Maupassant 1890 "The Tomb of Sarah" by Frederick George Loring What is agreed upon by most _Dracula_ scholars is that Bram Stoker consulted numerous sources in order to provide background for his story. The source for this conclusion is Stoker's own working papers which are currently housed at the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A list of some 29 books noted by Stoker himself in his working papers may be found in Elizabeth Miller's _Dracula: Sense & Nonsense_, pp. 21-22 or in Clive Leatherdale's _Dracula Unearthed_, pp. 18-19. PART 4: MISCELLANEOUS DRACULA STUFF [4.01] Do you know of any good websites about Dracula? There are dozens, far too many to include in this faq. A good place to start is probably with Elizabeth Miller's homepage for Dracula at: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/. Dr. Miller is a professor of English at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada. Her site contains well-researched academic information on the fictional Dracula, his creator Bram Stoker, and the individual from whom the fictional count took the name "Dracula", Prince Vlad ^Tepes^ Dracula. [4.02] Where can I get a copy of the BBC version of "Dracula" starring Louis Jourdan? Try Tapes of Terror. Write them for a catalog at P. Riggs, 6226 Darnell, Dept. VC, Houston, TX 77074-7416, USA. You can also view their online catalog at: www.tapesofterror.com. BTW, the correct title of the BBC^s version is "Count Dracula". Look for it in the Cs, not the Ds. [NOTE: I receive no kickback from ToT. It's just that I've not seen as extensive a list of hard-to-find vampire/horror movies anywhere else.] PART 5: WHO HAS HELPED TO MAKE THIS FAQ POSSIBLE? [5.01] Special thanks to these contributors who provided ideas, answers, and corrections. In order to give thanks where thanks are due, the names of faq contributors are in brackets following the passages they have written. If your contribution appears uncredited in the a.v. DRACULA faq, please contact the faqkeeper with the details. Dr. Elizabeth Miller [q.v. 4.01] Cathy Krusberg, "The Mad Bibliographer" Bill Thompson Arminius Lucadra ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ A copy of the most recently-posted version of this faq may be obtained at ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/alt/vampyres ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ User Contributions:
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: bj@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl)
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM
|
[FAQ] The alt.vampyres DRACULA faq
Search the FAQ Archives
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z
[FAQ] The alt.vampyres DRACULA faq
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Forum archive ]
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: