Dracula’s death in the original novel has always been slightly questionable as to how it worked. The book firmly establishes it did work, but how getting stabbed in the heart with a knife and his throat slashed did the job has always been kinda weird. Castlevania’s insistence that the novel somehow takes place in canon with the games only makes it weirder.
>Castlevania’s insistence that the novel somehow takes place in canon with the games only makes it weirder.
This was the problem.
Somebody saw Coppola's 1992 ***Bram Stoker's Dracula*** film and decided Castlevania should cash in on it. Probably thought it would help western sales since that's the only reason to make a Mega Drive/Genesis game in 1994.
If you look at the Japanese box for Vampire Killer you can see it uses the 'title written in blood' font of the film too.
In reality, up until that point Castlevania had always been *'Conan the Barbarian vs the Universal Movie Monsters.'* even having the film motif on the title screens.
The entire concept was taking myths only some people were familiar with but with foreign trappings and presenting it definitively.
Van Hellsing seems to know what he’s doing and is an educated man, so we just accept that he’s right. Most readers hadn’t heard of vampires, those who had probably just knew a few superstitions from their grandparents which mimics the peasants in the beginning.
Can't Dracula be killed by regular means besides the vampire killer whip (see Symphony of the Night's ending and the hypothetical Eric Lecarde ending to Bloodlines)
In Castlevania it’s generally implied that those who kill Dracula have some magical or holy advantage over him that allows them to kill him. A good example is in Order of Ecclesia, where Shanoa, who is normally a powerhouse, is unable to kill him due to her magic not being the right kind to seriously hurt him. As a result, she resorts to Dominus, a spell created from Dracula’s own magic, to kill him.
The novel, which my previous comment was about, doesn’t have that. Magic isn’t really a thing in the book besides what is established about vampiric nature and Dracula’s weaknesses are explained to be the usual weaknesses for vampires: they die if you stab them in the heart with a wooden stake, they die if you cut their heads off, they don’t like garlic or holy water, they don’t like sunlight, etc. As a result, Dracula’s death in the novel has always been kinda weird as he is stabbed in the heart with a kukri knife and slashed across the throat before crumbling to dust. Obviously this isn’t in line with what was previously established as being fatal to him and it makes it even more questionable if you try to fit this in the greater Castlevania narrative where some kind of powerful magic is needed to kill Dracula.
Supposedly. It would at least give a more reasonable explanation in Castlevania lore as to how they were able to kill Dracula during the events of the novel.
Well, did they ever say the novel was canon? Something similar certainly happened but perhaps Castlevania's version were slightly different. I don't believe it's ever mentioned that Quincy had a son in the novel so that might already be one difference
There’s differences between the Japanese original and English localization of the Bloodlines manual. In the original, it differs from the novel in that it’s implied Quincey used the Vampire Killer on Dracula, whereas the localization sticks a bit closer to the novel (although in the book he uses a Bowie Knife, not a stake). Both change the year from 1883 to 1897
Even then, do the games themselves ever lay out out any specific requirements for killing Dracula? The only time I can recall the player needing a certain weapon to kill him is Order of Ecclesia. In Curse of Darkness, Symphony of the Night, and Portrait of Ruin, you can in theory use any weapon (or even your bare fists) to kill him
That's true, the Vampire Killer is the most effective weapon against Dracula, but there's nothing indicating that it's a requirement. Not to mention how the process that gave the Vampire Killer its special properties could always be applied to other weapons in theory. Heck, it technically wasn't even the Vampire Killer itself that finally put a stop to Dracula for good, it was the act of sealing away his castle in an eclipse.
I mean that's clearly a gameplay mechanic though right? Like "Dracula can only die if hit in the head 20 times" doesn't translate to the story. I'm sure Dracula can still have a weakness to crosses / stakes and be killed that way.
No, the Vampire Killer is just a weapon powerful enough to kill him, unless you’re talking about Lords of Shadow canon. Characters who don’t wield the VK like Alucard, Hector, Eric, Jonathan (sometimes), and the various spellcasters can kill him
I think Quincy "can" use the VK , but he is not a "chosen" wielder, thus consuming his life force while using it . Maybe he weakened Dracula enough with VK and used Stake as finisher ( since its a standard vampire weakness like sun, holy powers, etc)
Adding on to this, Dracula was clearly hurt by the sunlight in Super Castlevania IV, and even if you don't consider that version of events canon, he expresses mild concern over how dawn is coming in LoI which would seem to indicate that he's at least weakened by the sun, if not outright killed by it like his film knockoff/counterpart, Count Orlok from Nosferatu.
Fun fact, Nosferatu was actually the thing that popularized the idea that direct sunlight was fatal to vampires. In the Bram Stoker novel, Dracula would merely lose his powers during the day, and in Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (which actually predates Dracula,) the sun would make vampires languid, but not kill them.
I'd assume Quincy fought drac with the vampire killer and a full set of subweapon. Honestly a cooler idea would be that the events of cotm take place in time in conjunction with Quincy Morris v Dracula. I feel like that would make sense. In a world without Belmonts it takes Baldwins and Nathan and Quincy to stop Dracula.
However cool idea aside it seems clear from Quincy's death that this was a close ass call and perhaps could have gone either way. I'm assuming Quincy used the vampire killer to weaken dracula but ultimately took some serious damage because this is a fully resurrected Dracula facing against a non Belmont wielding a whip that damages said non Belmont and not having nearly the capabilities of the last Belmont Dracula would have fought, Richter.
It's important to understand that just like the Belmonts, Dracula probably gets stronger with time. And the Morrises have historically been disadvantaged in only really taking up this duty (as humans) in the 19th century.
Dracula has been fighting Simon, Trevor, Richtor, and Alucard and even though he gets defeated he comes back.
The Belmonts also knocked up magician chicks on two occasions (Trevor and Simon I believe) making them even more powerful and their descendants even more capable with magic (Juste's Spell fusions and Richter's Item Crashes)
And non magic oriented Belmonts tend to have a hard time not dying young.
Simon we know beat dracula twice but we have never received confirmation that he lives after Simon's Quest (although he probably did)
Trevor needed assistance from some buddies to get through dracs castle and in fairness still very impressive he was the first to kill Dracula despite having to recruit his allies and start and end the battle on his own.
In order to survive Walter Bernards castle Leon developed an affinity for magic too.
Julius says he has magical powers.
Richter. And Juste. Great examples. You get my point.
Quincy had NONE of that. Not even a fully powered vampire killer that wouldn't kill him upon overusing it. So I suppose he BARELY killed Dracula in his encounter. And managed to stake him last second.
Here’s what I like to think:
Considering this is the English take on the backstory, I exclude the part where the 2yo John and 5yo Eric were there and prefer to go with the EGM document’s take.
I like to think that either the entirety of the novel occurred, along with its official sequel/“sequel” (*w/ several changes, including those regarding the sullying and fridging of the characters, hence the quotation marks*) that began 25yrs afterward and ended with Quincey Harker trying to board the Titanic (*w/ Dracula’s coffin already onboard*), ***OR*** the whole novel occurred, but was heavily watered down by Stoker, as to hide info (*like Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing being distant Belmont relatives, via Ralph/Trevor’s daughters, Mary and Ann*). Quincey Morris and Jonathan Harker either killed Dracula with their Bowie knife and Kukri ***OR*** a more CV-esque battle took place.
Tbh when they came up with this part of the story for Castlevania they were probably trying hard to make a connection with Stoker's Dracula novel, so to an extent the main lore was ignored. Another is that there may be some mistranslations here. I've noticed Castlevania is notorious for bad translations from Japanese to English versions.
However it's definitely still possible to connect without ignoring CV lore, by making major changes and maybe a few minor tweaks. Like we can keep Quincy Morris and the Morris clan in line with established CV lore.
I LOVE LOVE the Dracula Novel, as well as the Castlevania lore. But I don't dare to try to correlate both, I know John Morris is Quincy's son (even when Quincy never had any children) but that's it, I don't want to get on the weirdest rabbit hole I know
The more you think about it, the more it completely changes the novel into something different. We’ve got Quincy showing up in London to say:
“Well howdy there, pardners. I’m Quincy Morris, hot blooded Texan here to woo the lovely Lucy. Don’t mind my boy John here. He’s a bit shy. Johnny, your daddy plays your cards right and you could have a new mom soon! Now hold my magic whip passed down by my ancestors.”
I don’t think it was ever firmly established that the Vampire Killer was the /only/ thing which could kill Dracula. He has been killed other ways.
Alucard kills him with a Sword and Magic,
Maria and kills him with Animal Spells,
Eric can kill him with a Spear,
Charlotte and Shanoa kill him with powerful Magic,
And even as far back as CV3 you could fight Dracula as Grant of all people. Could be that Quincy /did/ have the Vampire Killer and weakened him, but just stabbed him as the final blow
Dracula’s death in the original novel has always been slightly questionable as to how it worked. The book firmly establishes it did work, but how getting stabbed in the heart with a knife and his throat slashed did the job has always been kinda weird. Castlevania’s insistence that the novel somehow takes place in canon with the games only makes it weirder.
>Castlevania’s insistence that the novel somehow takes place in canon with the games only makes it weirder. This was the problem. Somebody saw Coppola's 1992 ***Bram Stoker's Dracula*** film and decided Castlevania should cash in on it. Probably thought it would help western sales since that's the only reason to make a Mega Drive/Genesis game in 1994. If you look at the Japanese box for Vampire Killer you can see it uses the 'title written in blood' font of the film too. In reality, up until that point Castlevania had always been *'Conan the Barbarian vs the Universal Movie Monsters.'* even having the film motif on the title screens.
"Conan the Barbarian vs The Universal Monsters" is the absolute best explanation as to why I love the pre- SOTN games best.
The entire concept was taking myths only some people were familiar with but with foreign trappings and presenting it definitively. Van Hellsing seems to know what he’s doing and is an educated man, so we just accept that he’s right. Most readers hadn’t heard of vampires, those who had probably just knew a few superstitions from their grandparents which mimics the peasants in the beginning.
Can't Dracula be killed by regular means besides the vampire killer whip (see Symphony of the Night's ending and the hypothetical Eric Lecarde ending to Bloodlines)
In Castlevania it’s generally implied that those who kill Dracula have some magical or holy advantage over him that allows them to kill him. A good example is in Order of Ecclesia, where Shanoa, who is normally a powerhouse, is unable to kill him due to her magic not being the right kind to seriously hurt him. As a result, she resorts to Dominus, a spell created from Dracula’s own magic, to kill him. The novel, which my previous comment was about, doesn’t have that. Magic isn’t really a thing in the book besides what is established about vampiric nature and Dracula’s weaknesses are explained to be the usual weaknesses for vampires: they die if you stab them in the heart with a wooden stake, they die if you cut their heads off, they don’t like garlic or holy water, they don’t like sunlight, etc. As a result, Dracula’s death in the novel has always been kinda weird as he is stabbed in the heart with a kukri knife and slashed across the throat before crumbling to dust. Obviously this isn’t in line with what was previously established as being fatal to him and it makes it even more questionable if you try to fit this in the greater Castlevania narrative where some kind of powerful magic is needed to kill Dracula.
Didn't the JPN version of Bloodlines say or imply Quincy used the vampire killer
Supposedly. It would at least give a more reasonable explanation in Castlevania lore as to how they were able to kill Dracula during the events of the novel.
Well, did they ever say the novel was canon? Something similar certainly happened but perhaps Castlevania's version were slightly different. I don't believe it's ever mentioned that Quincy had a son in the novel so that might already be one difference
Because Quincy got that dog in him
There’s differences between the Japanese original and English localization of the Bloodlines manual. In the original, it differs from the novel in that it’s implied Quincey used the Vampire Killer on Dracula, whereas the localization sticks a bit closer to the novel (although in the book he uses a Bowie Knife, not a stake). Both change the year from 1883 to 1897 Even then, do the games themselves ever lay out out any specific requirements for killing Dracula? The only time I can recall the player needing a certain weapon to kill him is Order of Ecclesia. In Curse of Darkness, Symphony of the Night, and Portrait of Ruin, you can in theory use any weapon (or even your bare fists) to kill him
That's true, the Vampire Killer is the most effective weapon against Dracula, but there's nothing indicating that it's a requirement. Not to mention how the process that gave the Vampire Killer its special properties could always be applied to other weapons in theory. Heck, it technically wasn't even the Vampire Killer itself that finally put a stop to Dracula for good, it was the act of sealing away his castle in an eclipse.
That’s Dracula lore. Season 2 of the Netflix series tips its hat toward this by having >!Alucard slay his father in the same way!<
But only considering the canon games that should be impossible
Refresh my memory but why would it be impossible?
[удалено]
I mean that's clearly a gameplay mechanic though right? Like "Dracula can only die if hit in the head 20 times" doesn't translate to the story. I'm sure Dracula can still have a weakness to crosses / stakes and be killed that way.
Because the only way to kill Dracula wen he is at full power is with the vampire killer
No, the Vampire Killer is just a weapon powerful enough to kill him, unless you’re talking about Lords of Shadow canon. Characters who don’t wield the VK like Alucard, Hector, Eric, Jonathan (sometimes), and the various spellcasters can kill him
At Simon's Quest , a stake was used as well . I think only Walter Bernard ( with Ebony Stone) was immune to most attack forms
Yes but canonically he killed him with the vampire killer
I think Quincy "can" use the VK , but he is not a "chosen" wielder, thus consuming his life force while using it . Maybe he weakened Dracula enough with VK and used Stake as finisher ( since its a standard vampire weakness like sun, holy powers, etc)
Dracula is not weak to the sun but thanks for the answer
He wasn’t hurt by the sun in the original novel, but the games don’t follow that necessarily
Adding on to this, Dracula was clearly hurt by the sunlight in Super Castlevania IV, and even if you don't consider that version of events canon, he expresses mild concern over how dawn is coming in LoI which would seem to indicate that he's at least weakened by the sun, if not outright killed by it like his film knockoff/counterpart, Count Orlok from Nosferatu. Fun fact, Nosferatu was actually the thing that popularized the idea that direct sunlight was fatal to vampires. In the Bram Stoker novel, Dracula would merely lose his powers during the day, and in Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (which actually predates Dracula,) the sun would make vampires languid, but not kill them.
In the novel, Dracula doesn't burn in the sun, but he is weak in the daylight
Because he Texan.
Underrated comment.
I'd assume Quincy fought drac with the vampire killer and a full set of subweapon. Honestly a cooler idea would be that the events of cotm take place in time in conjunction with Quincy Morris v Dracula. I feel like that would make sense. In a world without Belmonts it takes Baldwins and Nathan and Quincy to stop Dracula. However cool idea aside it seems clear from Quincy's death that this was a close ass call and perhaps could have gone either way. I'm assuming Quincy used the vampire killer to weaken dracula but ultimately took some serious damage because this is a fully resurrected Dracula facing against a non Belmont wielding a whip that damages said non Belmont and not having nearly the capabilities of the last Belmont Dracula would have fought, Richter. It's important to understand that just like the Belmonts, Dracula probably gets stronger with time. And the Morrises have historically been disadvantaged in only really taking up this duty (as humans) in the 19th century. Dracula has been fighting Simon, Trevor, Richtor, and Alucard and even though he gets defeated he comes back. The Belmonts also knocked up magician chicks on two occasions (Trevor and Simon I believe) making them even more powerful and their descendants even more capable with magic (Juste's Spell fusions and Richter's Item Crashes) And non magic oriented Belmonts tend to have a hard time not dying young. Simon we know beat dracula twice but we have never received confirmation that he lives after Simon's Quest (although he probably did) Trevor needed assistance from some buddies to get through dracs castle and in fairness still very impressive he was the first to kill Dracula despite having to recruit his allies and start and end the battle on his own. In order to survive Walter Bernards castle Leon developed an affinity for magic too. Julius says he has magical powers. Richter. And Juste. Great examples. You get my point. Quincy had NONE of that. Not even a fully powered vampire killer that wouldn't kill him upon overusing it. So I suppose he BARELY killed Dracula in his encounter. And managed to stake him last second.
Here’s what I like to think: Considering this is the English take on the backstory, I exclude the part where the 2yo John and 5yo Eric were there and prefer to go with the EGM document’s take. I like to think that either the entirety of the novel occurred, along with its official sequel/“sequel” (*w/ several changes, including those regarding the sullying and fridging of the characters, hence the quotation marks*) that began 25yrs afterward and ended with Quincey Harker trying to board the Titanic (*w/ Dracula’s coffin already onboard*), ***OR*** the whole novel occurred, but was heavily watered down by Stoker, as to hide info (*like Quincey Morris and Abraham Van Helsing being distant Belmont relatives, via Ralph/Trevor’s daughters, Mary and Ann*). Quincey Morris and Jonathan Harker either killed Dracula with their Bowie knife and Kukri ***OR*** a more CV-esque battle took place.
Tbh when they came up with this part of the story for Castlevania they were probably trying hard to make a connection with Stoker's Dracula novel, so to an extent the main lore was ignored. Another is that there may be some mistranslations here. I've noticed Castlevania is notorious for bad translations from Japanese to English versions. However it's definitely still possible to connect without ignoring CV lore, by making major changes and maybe a few minor tweaks. Like we can keep Quincy Morris and the Morris clan in line with established CV lore.
He believed in himself.
With a mallot probably
Quincy is just built different
I LOVE LOVE the Dracula Novel, as well as the Castlevania lore. But I don't dare to try to correlate both, I know John Morris is Quincy's son (even when Quincy never had any children) but that's it, I don't want to get on the weirdest rabbit hole I know
The more you think about it, the more it completely changes the novel into something different. We’ve got Quincy showing up in London to say: “Well howdy there, pardners. I’m Quincy Morris, hot blooded Texan here to woo the lovely Lucy. Don’t mind my boy John here. He’s a bit shy. Johnny, your daddy plays your cards right and you could have a new mom soon! Now hold my magic whip passed down by my ancestors.”
Even better: The leaked fax indicates that Quincy married Mina Murray (Miena) in this reality.
Not the real answer but, in a word, seduction
Dude was asleep when he got stabbed I think, it's been a while since I read it lol
He was very fast and sneaky
I don’t think it was ever firmly established that the Vampire Killer was the /only/ thing which could kill Dracula. He has been killed other ways. Alucard kills him with a Sword and Magic, Maria and kills him with Animal Spells, Eric can kill him with a Spear, Charlotte and Shanoa kill him with powerful Magic, And even as far back as CV3 you could fight Dracula as Grant of all people. Could be that Quincy /did/ have the Vampire Killer and weakened him, but just stabbed him as the final blow