fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4758 ]

[ SECRET POST #4758 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4758 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Witcher]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Mass Effect Trilogy]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Emma (2020)]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Saiyuki]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #681.
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

Erotic in the sense of flirting to get people into his web so he can drink their blood and/or turn them, yes. Actually having sex with them or actually really being sexually attracted to them himself, no. And that's where most adaptions get it wrong. Dracula uses sexuality for homicide purposes, but he doesn't actually care about sex himself. There is no evidence he himself feels any sexual attraction to anyone of any gender.

If you think what Dracula does can accurately be called "flirting", I'm not sure you've actually read the book, either.

Well, what word would you use? I'm not sure there really is a word to accurately describe it. Whatever it is, it is all an act. He's certainly not actually sexually attracted to anyone. He just wants their blood. For him it really is all about the homicide.

If I were Moffat I would simply not feel the need to establish that Dracula isn't bisexual in the first place

I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he's saying that his adaption won't be making Dracula sexual. He's saying the focus is on the homicide, which is the point of the term bi-homicide. He's not removing the queer aspect because the bi is still there. I think it might just be a faithful adaption where Dracula uses his the methods he uses in the books to get what he wants from people of all genders. Moffat is just making the point that Dracula's purpose isn't sex, it's murder. He's a serial killer, not a lover.

Saying that Dracula is bi-homicidal absolutely does not read as keeping the queer element to me, regardless of if the word 'bi' is still present, because it reads as completely sesexualizing the character.

SA this should say desexualizing obviously

Dracula can't be desexualized, IMHO, because he wasn't sexualized in the book in the first place. That's where we are disagreeing. He's bi in the sense of going after all sorts of victims. But he's not in any way sexual. He's homicidal. He's murderous and demonic. He gets off on the pain and suffering of others. He's not a sexual being. He uses eroticism to get what he wants. But he himself isn't sexual. It is other adaptions that have sexualized him in a way he simply wasn't originally, and it is Moffatt that is going back to the original version.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-16 00:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-16 14:02 (UTC) - Expand

At its extreme, it's seduction. Dracula isn't batting his eyes at potential victims or asking if it hurt much when they fell from heaven, ffs.

"Eroticism" describes very accurately and well. And if you think the story of Dracula just about blood or "all about the homicide"... I'm sorry, but you don't get it. It's impossible to separate the blood drinking from the eroticism and to a lesser extent, the sexuality behind it.

And I never said I wanted to separate it. You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. Yes, the eroticism is part and parcel of Dracula's methods. That doesn't make him sexual, though. He himself doesn't experience sexual attraction. He uses the sexual attraction of others. He uses eroticism to get what he wants. But he's not sexual. Other adaptions have made him so. But in the original book he is not.

Flirting and seduction are synonyms to me as I think flirting can mean more than just "batting eyes." But okay, seduction then. Eroticism. I think my point still stands. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see Dracula as being himself sexual in the book.

I think it can be strictly speaking true that Dracula is not bisexual as a character, and still be a stupid thing for Moff to say that he's "bi-homicidal and not bisexual", because it's running away from the eroticism that's inherent and necessary to the character, and the non-heterosexual nature of that eroticism.

Now you have obviously read the book.

The eroticism is an act, though. The homicide is the point. Dracula isn't a sexual being in the sense that he himself is sexually attracted to anyone. He uses eroticism to get what he wants. But that's not what's in it for him. He's not about the eroticism, he's about the blood and the homicide. To call him bisexual is to suggest that he's in some way sexual. Most adaptions have made him so, but he isn't.

The eroticism and sex is absolutely part of the point of the character even if it's not part of his internal motivation

Yes, it is. Didn't say it wasn't. Moffat didn't say it wasn't either. Moffat is only saying that Dracula himself isn't sexual, which is the same thing I'm saying. His internal motivation is important. Sounds to me like Moffat is going to be getting the character exactly right.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

He uses the sexual attractions of others to get what he wants, he isn't a being of sexual attraction himself.

I hate Moffat, I thought his Dracula series was awful, but 'bi-homicidal' would be a fair assessment.

He's not shagging anyone, he's not banging his food. He's not a sexual being. He's about as sexually attracted to his prey as a carnivorous plant is to the flies. But he'll use the sexual attractions of either men or women to get that meal.

So, you don't think Dracula got any joy out of acting erotically with his victims? He played the part strictly for a meal? And he wouldn't be capable of hunting humans if he didn't put on a show?

Yes, he did, but again, the eroticism wasn't his goal. He was about the homicide. He got something out of his methods, certainly, but there is no evidence whatsoever that what he got out of it was sexual. Everything we see of Dracula shows that his motivations are murderous and homicidal. His methods increased the suffering of his victims, and that's what he got out of it. His methods were a game pitting him against them, and that's what he got of it. But he didn't get off on it sexually. He's not a sexual being.

"The eroticism is an act, though."

It's not. It's inseparable from the character as part of the blood lust, and the word "lust" should be a biiiiiiig clue. He may not act upon it, it isn't as conspicuous as sexual attraction, but the eroticism is NOT an act. If you've actually read the novel, I think it's either been a while or a lot of it went right over your head.

Blood lust. You missed the first word there. He lusts for blood. Not for bodies. He's not experiencing sexual attraction. And yes, the eroticism is an act in the sense that he doesn't feel sexual attraction but uses the games of sexual attraction and eroticism to get other characters on the path he wants them on. He's not acting on his own sexual attraction. He's acting using the moves of sexual attraction as he's seen in others and playing out the steps. He's seducing the other characters into his web. He enjoys it, yes. It is fun for him as a murderous, monstrous being to get other characters to willingly do what he wants. That's blood lust, not sexual lust. Those aren't the same thing.

I read it recently for the record. You seem to think that your interpretation is the only one that exists. It isn't.

And I'm telling you, it's not two separate things. The symbolism of blood, eroticisim and repressed sexuality is maybe THE main theme in the novel. You've over simplified it so much you've missed one of the major points. It's like reading Moby Dick and arguing that it's all about the fishing.

Okay, whatever, going to have to agree to disagree. We just interpret it differently Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Although, symbolism is not the same thing as a character actually having sexuality. Dracula's murder being a symbol of represssed sex doesn't mean he's actually a sexual being.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2020-01-16 00:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

philstar22 - 2020-01-16 00:52 (UTC) - Expand

Literally the entire point of vampires is the carnal, primal lust ensconced in imagery of savage bloodshed, dude. That's... It was literally ALWAYS about sexuality once they stopped being Just Zombies. Their point was the forbidden pleasures without making it about actual sex. Learn to fucking metaphor.

I know what a metaphor is. The metaphor is there, but doesn't make Dracula actually sexual. There is a difference between a Watsonian vs. a Doylist perspective of a text. A metaphor is a Doylist perspective of a text. Discussing a characters sexuality is a Watsonian perspective. Those are two very different things.

Arrogance does not an argument win. FWIW I agree with philstar, and that's not something I often do.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only