[ SECRET POST #2504 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2504 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.



__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 88 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

First off, there's next to no evidence that Bram Stoker extensively based Dracula on Vlad Tepes. His research notes indicate that he took the patronymic "Dracula" from an 1820s book on Wallachia/Moldavia which didn't have any info on Vlad aside from the fact that he fought the Turks and had a treasonous brother. It's pretty probable that he didn't even know the guy was named "Vlad."

Second off, I suppose that as a reader you can take a story about a woman being assaulted in her bedroom while under threat of having her husband's neck broken as some sort of coded love story, but its sort of immensely creepy to affirm that this is the definitive way to read the text.

Stoker was primarily a writer of romance novels, and the ones he wrote both before and after Dracula are pretty explicit with regards to the emotions of the characters involved. Also, far from being the completely prudish Victorian we'd like to imagine him, he refers pretty bluntly to the existence (and wholesomeness) of sexual desire in more than one of them. Seriously. It really isn't as though late Victorians/early Edwardians were such horrifically repressed goobers that they could only pen a love story by making it look and sound exactly like rape. Sometimes, brutish violent men forcing a woman to ingest their body fluids and then referring to them as a "wine press" and a "jackal" are actually just rapists.