fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3588 ]

[ SECRET POST #3588 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3588 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 62 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Mixed feelings.

I really loved the first ~100 pages. Those are fantastic. It's atmospheric, suspenseful, much more serious than I expected. I didn't want to stop reading at that point. The buildup of tension is something else. The carriage ride to Dracula's castle with the wolves chasing behind manages to create claustrophobia in an open air setting. It's fucking lovely!

And, oh, the imagery in Harker's early entries is beautiful. Dracula moving along the castle walls like a lizard, the female vampires forming out of moonlight and dust, Dracula gorging himself on so much blood that he is bloated with it etc. This is the bloody, messy, sinister vampirism I want to see.

I loved Harker at the beginning. He's so, so afraid, and yet never becomes completely useless. The development of dread and entrapment in those chapters is great. The letters Harker was forced to write in particular was a genuinely creepy moment. It's simple, it's effective, it's elegant.

It was all so intriguing, including the confused sexuality between Dracula and Harker. I was ready to fall in love.

And then Van Helsing happens. And it takes such a nosedive. It starts going round in circles, becomes repetitive, boring, and all the fun evaporates.

It descends into preachy camp and never recovers. Someone called it 'Christian propaganda', and I have to agree. Admittedly, I'm never going to be a big fan of religious fiction or religious themes in fiction, but I can put up with it just fine, if the text is worth it. But, holy cow, this is probably the most obnoxious example I've ever come across.

Not a fan of the whole pure, godly woman vs. devilish whore thing. There is a lot of repressed sexuality in the whole book, with female sexuality being the most dangerous of all (surprise, surprise). But that's the Victorians for you. The whole staking of Lucy reads like a fetishist's wet dream, which is simultaneously horrifying and hilarious. Or rather Lucy's whole arc with the multiple proposals, kisses and blood infusions is one giant leadup to the deliverance through violent and blood-soaked death idea, executed by her noble, manly fiance. Like a fratboy jackhammer deflowering a blow-up doll. In this case, a stake is not just a stake.

It's also way too long. If our main characters had spent less time praising themselves as brave and righteous heroes, the book could have been at least 100 pages shorter. And it would have been better for it.

I didn't like any of the 'good' characters. Even Harker becomes just another noble, manly douche, as soon as he loses his doubt in himself and his past experiences. I actively loathed Van Helsing. That old fart really got on my nerves. I wanted him to die so badly, because it would have been the only way to have him finally shut up. But sadly, that didn't happen. I would have loved to see more of Renfield, the female vampires and Dracula himself, because those were actually interesting.

I don't regret reading it, even though I found the second half progressively tedious and annoying, and I had little to no desire to pick it up and continue reading. I'm a bit sad and disappointed how it turned out. It could have been so much more. It could have been amazing. Especially, because Stoker so clearly would have had the skill, but no, instead he just deliberately made a lot of stupid choices.

we could have had it all.gif

Victorian-era literature can be grueling to read for a lot of reasons, but the religiousity, gender politics and long-windedness are definitely a few of those reasons.

Van Helsing to me is interesting as a character with his stilted English, and it's clear that his combination of vast knowledge yet open-mindedness makes him the ideal vampire hunter template if later media is anything to go on, but the way Stoker uses him definitely leaves a lot to be desired.

Would definitely like to have seen more of the vampires, Dracula included. Dracula was annoyingly underdeveloped for what's supposed to be the villain of the piece -- once Harker escapes from the castle that's the last we even see of Dracula himself for most of the book. (Though the bit where he showed up at the docks in a straw hat was really, really funny to me.)

Victorian morality and sentiment is one thing. But I honestly didn't expect it to this degree in something that is basically a pulp thriller with blood-sucking villains and monster hunting. It's not 'serious' literature at all. And while it is present at the beginning, it's present as background noise, unlike the rest of the book, where the reader is constantly hit over the head with it. It really exceeded my tolerance level in the later chapters, I'm afraid.

Van Helsing is complicated. I can - ever so slightly - see the potential why some people might like him, in theory. You have the quirky, dotty foreigner thing who turns out to be right with his crackpot theories.

However, in practice, he doesn't work at all. I, personally, couldn't understand at all, why everyone was in such a rage to believe, trust, obey, and even love him. It doesn't make sense to me, at all. There is not one dissenting voice against him among the main characters, not one. He doesn't actually have to overcome anything to establish himself. That's not a hero for me, that's a bad joke. But yeah, my dislike certainly colours my opinion in this case. And his fucking annoying, non-sensical accent really didn't help.

Yes, as the big bad and titular character, Dracula fell pretty flat. Which is even more sad, because the potential, the lovely details, so much material to play with, it's all there. And Stoker barely uses it.

The straw hat was awesome, though. I loved that, too. :D

To be fair to VH, the characters object to his ideas multiple times, which is precisely why he takes them on expeditions to the churchyard to prove his theories. You're right though, they do seem to trust him implicitly afterwards.

As far as Victorian morality... well, it's like I said in my own post, Mina herself definitely seems to be Stoker's vehicle for a pushback against a more modernized view of women and gender roles, which in 1897 would have been seeing prominence in things like suffragism, the New Woman movement (which Mina explicitly does the rhetorical equivalent of rolling her eyes at) and various women's campaigns. And I suspect he chose Mina for it precisely because she's a woman.

You're right, I oversimplified the Van Helsing thing a bit. They do a kind of pro forma questioning, when his suggestions are too out there or go too far, but that always only lasts five seconds, after which they do it anyway, because they all trust him to know what's best for everyone. Even if it entails staking and decapitating a dead loved one in a weird, rape-like ritual.

That's a great point about Stoker commenting on his current climate regarding women's liberation. I haven't looked into his biography or other writings at all, so that's interesting.

I've seen plenty of people calling Stoker a feminist, which baffles me. Because I think that's really not what he's getting at. That's actually one reason, why Mina (though great potential in theory as well) leaves me utterly cold. Because she doesn't read like an actual (though fictional) Victorian woman. She reads like the fantasy of a Victorian man. She is Stoker's perfect woman, because she is an empty container who spouts her creator's pearls of wisdom. There is nothing genuine about her, she has no thought of her own, she is a tool that does exactly what it's supposed to do. So yeah, I don't understand the love for her either. But I know I'm holding the minority position here.

I think on the whole Dracula as a novel makes for an interesting cultural artifact, if really showing its age at this point. It's not a GREAT novel, but it's an important one. That it went into public domain almost immediately in the US (mostly due to Stoker screwing up when he was getting it published here) is likely the reason why characters like Dracula, Van Helsing and Mina have all seen reuse in later media, often in revised forms. There's real potential in Mina as a character as long as she's not being used as a vehicle for the author's own sociopolitical views.

Aww, I didn't know that. Poor Bram! That must have sucked.

I totally agree, it's an iconic novel. Which is why we're still reading it, to see what the all the fuss is about. What made it so frustrating for me, is exactly the potential in it. Because it could have been an iconic as well as a great novel. But the preaching broke it for me.

Really? I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much agency Mina had for a fictional Victorian woman. If anything Lucy was the fantasy woman, the perfect, quiet, sweet, meek, beautiful woman who never really did anything on her own. Mina argued with the men and even won one of the arguments, did work towards their cause without being directed, and made intellectual contributions to their conversations. There's a lot to be desired, and again this is relative to my expectations for the time period, but she was clearly very bright (even if it was written off as having a "man's brain", rme) and determined.

lol @ thinking Stoker is a feminist though. I would definitely not say that, at least from reading Dracula.

I can totally see, why someone would like her based on what you said. And I'm not trying to argue that my own interpretation is somehow more right than anyone else's. I really wanted it to click with me, it just didn't happen. :(

I'm definitely reading it with modern goggles and sensibilities, but my problem is not really with what Mina does, but what she is as a 'character'.

The male characters are proper characters. Even though I think they are a bunch of borderline idiotic douches, who sadly become more and more indistinguishable the longer they work together, they are still proper characters. None of them, not even Morris, is one-dimensional. They all have their own thoughts, motivations, conflicts etc.

Mina (and Lucy as well) on the other hand never goes beyond being an empty mouthpiece. She is clever and resourceful and morally upstanding, yes, but she is all that only because she is supposed to be the perfect companion for Harker and later Van Helsing and the others. Every thought, action, motivation she has is 100% focussed on and subservient to the male characters and their stories. She has no story herself.

She only knows shorthand, maps, schedules etc. to assist Harker. There is no hint at all, that those are her own interests. Later on the guys need someone to justify their planned, cold blooded murder as the morally superior and above all Christian thing to do, so Mina swoops in with her 'we should have compassion with Dracula's lost soul and free it from its undead body' spiel. Then she solves the puzzle, because the men need the puzzle solved. But she might as well be a machine. That's why I called her a tool. She is a plot device who has no motivation, thought or conflict of her own.

I have no idea who Mina is, if you take the male characters out of the equation. Because she's a facade with nothing behind it.

Even her supposedly so deep friendship to Lucy is utterly empty to me. It's like Stoker watched two female acquaintances having a chat for five minutes, and then believed he suddenly knew everything about female friendships. I mean, calling someone a sweet, poor dear roughly 200 times doesn't make it a friendship. How are two empty vessels supposed to connect to each other?

I'm still kinda happy though, that so many people like her, tbh. Because the general consensus that Mina is the true hero instead of Van Helsing makes me feel a lot better with my hatred for him. :D

I just really didn't interpret it that way! Fair enough I guess.

One other thing, it really wasn't "cold-blooded murder" to destroy Dracula. He was already dead; they were destroying a vampire, not killing a human being. You make it sound like what they were doing was bad. Not sure if that was your intent.

Not seriously, no. :)

Although I do find the semantics interesting, when you have to sneak 'undead' into the dead/alive dichotomy to justify your actions. But that's certainly not specific to Dracula, pretty much all monster fighting fiction does that or something similar. And I think it's generally worth questioning why the third category is there, when its necessity is questionable. Nevertheless, I wouldn't bother with that for Dracula, maybe if we were discussing more 'serious' lit, but nah, not for this.

Stoker himself obviously felt like it needed further justification, since he put the whole releasing the original soul business on top of it.

when its necessity is questionable.

Really? I think it's a useful distinction. Vampires (like zombies, etc.) are dead. They have died and they no longer metabolize or grow. But they're animated and dangerous, unlike the corpses of most people who have died. "Undead" may or may not be the best word, but having a descriptor for creatures in that limbo is useful IMO.

I thought the "original soul business" was part of the overall incorporation of traditional and dogmatic Anglicanism and Catholicism in the overall story. I also thought it was kind of nice that even Dracula had peace at the end, and that a distinction was made between the living man Count Dracula, as he had been however many centuries ago when he was actually alive, and the vampire, whose cruel actions were part of the feature of his being undead, and not a reflection on what the actual man was like. In other words, the choices a vampire makes are not in any way made by the person who the body belonged to before it died.

Though the bit where he showed up at the docks in a straw hat was really, really funny to me.

That part reminded me of some anime characters lol. Particularly (for some reason) Kisuke Urahara from Bleach, even though his hat isn't made of straw and he's not a villain. It's just the combination of the casual, sun-shading hat with the dark, serious attire I suppose.

I was thinking of Batman doing gardening, myself. :)

I like that mental image! :D

I don't agree entirely with your loathing of Van Helsing but he was pretty annoying at times, yeah.

I guess I didn't really pick up on all this sexual context. I do think the purity of "good women" is given a great deal of precedence but that's not really unique to this book from the time period, is it? I also think there might have been some sexual tension between Lucy and Dracula but it's hard to say because she wasn't really conscious when any of it was going on.

Where did you pick up on sexual tension between Jonathan and Dracula? Genuinely curious because I think that would add to the tension of the whole captivity but I didn't really pick up on it. To be honest I thought the book was fairly bereft of sex as a theme which was actually a refreshing change lol.

Agreed that it could have been much shorter and told the story just as well. A lot of the journaling was repetitive and Van Helsing's monologues were ridiculous.

The Harker/Dracula thing is at least in part a holdover of the first four chapters following a very common plot in Gothic literature in which a "pure" woman of good standing runs around a castle being menaced by a charming noble with rapacious designs. In this case, Harker is the stand-in for the ordinarily female role.

There's also an inherently sexual element to vampirism in general, which is probably why so many people want to bone them these days.

Ah ok. I kinda like that subversion lol. But I haven't read any books with that particular trope so I hadn't recognized it. It might make for an interesting love story if they managed to make the nobleman somewhat likeable, though it's hard to imagine a guy in that setting being particularly likeable lol.

There's also an inherently sexual element to vampirism in general, which is probably why so many people want to bone them these days.

I agree with this and have seen a lot of it, and can even sort of see the appeal, I just didn't pick up on it in Dracula, which is probably a combination of me being bad at reading between the lines, and Victorian culture being extremely repressed about sexuality and extremely circumspect and roundabout wrt how they talked or wrote about it.

ETA: ok now that I think about it the women in Dracula's castle were obviously supposed to be sexual, and clearly moreso than a mortal woman, which was supposed to be why they were so alluring. But they were really minor characters and also female, and I didn't see Dracula portrayed that way, except I guess maybe his features were supposed to be handsome but that wasn't specifically stated. And Dracula's female vampire companions were very minor characters and the sexual aspect was definitely not written the same way with Dracula himself.

(I do really want to read those short stories about the vampire women that Stoker apparently penned after Dracula, or at the same time and didn't include them from the novel, or something.)

Edited 2016-10-30 23:11 (UTC)

You pretty much answered your own question already. :)

Dethtoll made an excellent point about Stoker's use of the Gothic trope with Harker. For me the details really just enhanced that as well. Harker is simultaneously intrigued and terrified by Dracula. Dracula traps him, and invades his space (he actually makes Harker's bed! and provides food, because he has apparently no staff to do that), he also menaces and protects him at the same time.

And yes, the female vampires are one big sexcapade. They are sexually aggressive women, who want to suck Harker's blood and call it 'kissing'.

And then, who swoops in to save Harker? It's Count D, who tells the others that this man is his, and speaks of love. And Harker is totally turned on, terrified, confused, and self-loathing the whole time. Dracula is a threat, and to me at least, it's not just the threat of death, but a similar threat of downfall and pollution that Mina faces, even if Harker doesn't explicitly say the words out loud. And I think Harker's trauma is not only the result of questioning his own sanity.

I personally see the vampire as a sexual deviant theme, including homosexuality, in the early parts. Even if Stoker pulls a pretty impressive 'no homo' later on. Although I have to say, that Dracula has Harker lying helplessly next to his wife, while he assaults her, is still pretty telling to me. I don't know. I don't know anything biographical to back this up, of course. But the book seems extremely Freudian to me. I'm reading Lucy's character arc in the same vein.

Oooh, I didn't know there were stories about the female vampires. I might have to check that out.

I'm getting tired, so I hope this makes sense. (:

I actually have read an analysis of the book (some library edition somewhere, about 10+ years ago) that explicitly mentioned the homosexual themes, so you're not the first to notice that.

nayrt but homosexual themes, particularly with Jonathan and Dracula, have been a common topic in literary critique of the work. Who can say for sure, but plenty of academics have explored homoerotic undertones with Dracula. The author's interest in Walt Whitman also can't exactly be ignored, for some real life context.

No doubt, I'd just personally love to see some examples of it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3588 ]

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!

Re: Book club - DRACULA discussion post!