Topic: Why the Morris Family? A Look at the Original Dracula Novel

[VeteranVk]

Fair enough. 

[Ridureyu]

Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in.  The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp.  But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.

[Profbeanburrito]

Let's not forget that video games in general are not 100% accurate to there real life counterparts. Who cares if it doesn't correctly correspond with the book. The can create their own take on the events from Dracula. Its happened other times in Castlevania and other games and its going to continue to happen. Let's just enjoy it for what it is

[Lumas]

Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in.  The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp.  But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.

Agreed the novel mentions Quincy Morris, a character from Bram's novel. But it could also be considered an "ode" to the novel either way until it states the reason behind Quincy's heritage  one would have to assume that the novel is cannon perhaps in that little side note in the timeline. EDIT meaning maybe the will go into detail to why Quincy was a Belmont because it states in that timeline that ideas were being planned to explain Elizabeth.

That's because of IGA. He ruined CV in this manor. It's like no-longer making Link the one to kill Gannon or Samus not being the one to save the day in Metroid. The Belmonts were the heroes of CV. But even if there names, cloths, lifestyles and locations are changed, they are still Belmonts by blood and that blood held the magical, spiritual properties that made them the heroes of this series. Then Iga brings in his own creations that in my mind, don't live up to the Belmont's legacy and soon everyone can kill the count. It no-longer matters who it is. Now its a free for all. It could even be some kid who's starving on the streets who's not a Belmont, stabs Drac and saves the day. It just doesn't work for me and it ruins CV as we fans have grown to love.



And if you want to include Circle of the Moon in the timeline, Nathan Graves beat Dracula, too.

That's because he's also a Belmont by blood even though he didn't have the vampirekiller or the name. Once again it's not just the whip that gives them this edge, it's also in their blood. LoI story helps solidify this:

I dont believe Nathan was ever stated actually being blood related but I havent played the game in some time so I cant remember though everything ive looked up online doesnt state he was blood related but it also doesnt state he wasn't. And that statement contradict yours former one. How can IGA's ideas ruin it with anyone just beating Dracula when he also states in LoI that the Belmonts have special properties to beat the count so that wouldnt make sense since Hector Shanoa Cornell (not an IGA character btw) and others beat the count. If IGAs story dictates that anyone can beat dracula then why put that in LoI?

[darkwzrd4]

Let's keep in mind that Dracula isn't always at full power when someone fights him.  In CotM, he lacked his full power (he even says that in the game).  In CoD, he was using Issac's body as a vessel and at the end of the battle he mentions that the transformation may not be complete.  Meaning that he may not be at full power.  And with OoE, he was just toying with Shanoa until she use Donimus which was strong enough because it was Dracula's own power.

Based on this, assuming what I've said is accurate, the Belmonts may be the only ones who can beat Dracula when he is at full power.

[Ridureyu]

The non-Belmonts who beat Dracula didn't do so because "Anybody can do it," but instead it was a huge, surprising upset.  You're not supposed to say "Dracula is a wuss," but "Wow! Cornell/Shanoa/Nathan really pulled through in the end! Amazing!"  Both Circle of the Moon and Order of Ecclesia make it pretty clear, actually.  As stated, Dracula was just toying with Shanoa ast first, although he began to get serious when he realized she could hurt him.  Then she busted out DOminus, which he had not expected, and it took him down.  CotM makes it plainly clear that Nathan Graves is in way over his head, and redefines "underdog."  He's not in Dracula's castle, Drac isn't at full power, but he's still looked at as a long shot to win anything.  The fact that he does is pretty impressive, and the game does a good job of giving it the proper atmosphere - the kid feels overwhelmed at everything that's going on, andyet he finds the strength and courage to conquer the whole castle, and even a newly-resurrected Dracula.

[Nagumo]

Unfortunately, since the timeline references the novel (and Bloodlines does so even more explicitly), we're forced to believe that they shoehorned the novel in.  The burden of proof rests on the "It's not the novel at all, but a totally different Quincy" camp.  But then, knowing IGA, he'll probably release a press statement or something about it, most likely the next time he flip-flops on Circle of the Moon.

The timeline always mentions the game/comic/etc in which a certain event is told (in this case only games). For example Trevor's battle against Dracula is depicted in Castlevania III for NES according to the timeline. The bit about Quincy Morris does not have a corresponding medium. That is prove enough that the novel is not part of the canon since the book itself is never mentioned.       

[DragonSlayr81]

The NOVEL is not part of the CV canon, but the events are. Or, more correctly stated, the events that are INSPIRED by the novel. Like I said, CV's take on those events, while sharing similar ideas(no doubt) ARE different. There's no plot hole because they are two separate entities. Bram Stoker never intended, nearly a hundred years later, that some Japanese company would loosely work his character into their own franchise's canon. I don't see how people can't get over this. The events referenced as LOOSELY based on Stoker's novel just like Stoker's Dracula is LOOSELY based on Vlad the Impaler. That's not a pill that's hard to swallow.

[Ridureyu]

Has anything specifically said "The novel is not in any way part of the timeline, nor are the events?"  Again, since all those sources mention a character and the broad structure of what happened in the novel, that's the assumed position and will stay so until somebody specirfically says "No, the novel is not part of the timeline in any way," or "Well, the general broad strokes are, but here are the changes."

It's kind of like saying "Well, Portrait of Ruin is in the timeline, but obviously none of that stuff about Brauner ever actually happened, right?"

(although I argue that none of the games ever "actually happened," hehehe)

[Nagumo]

Has anything specifically said "The novel is not in any way part of the timeline, nor are the events?"  Again, since all those sources mention a character and the broad structure of what happened in the novel, that's the assumed position and will stay so until somebody specirfically says "No, the novel is not part of the timeline in any way," or "Well, the general broad strokes are, but here are the changes."

Demanding prove of the contrary is kind off a cop-out argument.

[Ridureyu]

No, it's not really, no more than demanding proof that it is part of the timeline.  I assert that Bloodlines mentioned it, and the character of Quincy Morris is referenced (including the circumstances of his death).  Thus, I want to know if there is any evidence that the novel is not canon, as so far canon works supports it.

I just think that they didn't really read the novel well enough before making it part of the Castlevania mythos.  But hey, at least we don't have D running around!

[Lumas]

I agree with Rid on this one its not a cop out on the argument if one debater ask for proof of the other's argument to prove his side. From my understanding of the story the events that took place in the book were described as it states John was present for when this happened.

[Ridureyu]

Which is also pretty dang goofy, let's be honest.

"And uh, baby John was dangling from the carriage. Right.  Then a gypsy threw him into the castle, so he saw his dad die! And, uh, then... aw screw it, they're all Belmonts."

[Lumas]

Which is also pretty dang goofy, let's be honest.

"And uh, baby John was dangling from the carriage. Right.  Then a gypsy threw him into the castle, so he saw his dad die! And, uh, then... aw screw it, they're all Belmonts."

LOL yeah also Quincy wasnt that old and was alone adventuring with Aurther and it doesnt state him having no other love interests other than Lucy. Also in the note left on the timeline they stated that there were plans being made to explain Elizabeth so that story may explain Quincy.

[Ridureyu]

Well, Quincy was from Texas.  And you know what they say about those Texans.