Monday, October 24, 2005

Dracula: This Bites

The other night I was at my in-laws and we were discussing Dracula. I happened to be holding a dictionary because of a disagreement over the word "Limey" so while we were on the topic of vampires I attempted to look up fang face. He wasn't there.

I don't know what he did to upset Noah Webster but there was nothing in the dictionary about Dracula and nothing about Vlad the Impaler. Boring presidents like Martin Van Buren seemed to make the cut and even that crappy new word "Mcjob" was there. Frankenstein had two definitions. I went home and checked my dictionary. Nothing.

So why no recognition for Dracula? I'm sure 9 out of 10 eight year olds know of Dracula, possibly even Bunnicula, while it is likely none of them know our 8th president. Maybe there's the off-chance I checked two lousy dictionaries, but otherwise I would think Dracula is culturally important enough to be included. He's upper-class, couldn't possibly be whiter and the more evil you do, the more pages you get in the history books. What gives? I think the makers of Count Chocula cereal should spearhead this charge as it plays an integral part in the brand recognition for their incomplete breakfast stuff.

No comments: