#Bram Stoker
jonathanharker · a day ago
Tumblr media
vamptober day one: lucy westenra
278 notes · View notes
atundratoadstool · 2 days ago
How many prior times have we encountered a "mysterious flapping at the window" at this point? I lost count. How many of them would have been improved if Quincey P. Morris had appeared to shoot that mysterious flapper out of the sky? All of them.
317 notes · View notes
sepublic · 2 days ago
Tumblr media
B-Bram Stoker????
218 notes · View notes
thegoodbyehand · 11 hours ago
Tumblr media
Bram Stoker is hilarious, actually
342 notes · View notes
cherryqueenoftarts · a day ago
Mina not telling Jonathan or anyone else her "dream" makes perfect sense to me. When they kicked her out of the clubhouse they broke trust with her. Even if she doesn't articulate it that's what happened. She's was the one most emphatically encouraging openness and trust. She was so confident. Their well-meaning rejection destroyed that confidence.
I'm not especially disturbed that Jonathan hasn't connected the dots wrt Mina's paleness. Of course he hasn't. He's convinced that order has been restored to the universe because the men have taken charge. Experts are experting. This, in all of their minds, makes Mina *safer*. They will all have to overcome their self-satisfaction and wishful thinking before they'll be able to recognize the clues.
I'm infuriated, but not surprised, on a general level, at the idiots for cutting her out and leaving her vulnerable. And I'm a little disappointed in Mina for not realizing right away that it wasn't a dream and Dracula is hunting her, honestly. She should at least be worried about it, and maybe trying to rationalize it ("Reading Lucy's diary put this nightmare in my head").
On a meta level, though, kudos to Stoker.
I'm so impressed with his messages, whether they were intentional or not.
Lucy's story: raising ladies to be submissive is bad, actually.
Mina's story: men are wrong to sideline women, and their machismo puts the women they're supposed to protect in more danger.
Bersicker's story: wolves are good bois and the long history of their villainization isn't their fault.
Stoker is *way* more enlightened than I expected.
176 notes · View notes
demonsandpieohmy · 2 days ago
Tumblr media
91 notes · View notes
luanna801 · 12 hours ago
I saw a post recently to the effect of “If you’re going to do the reincarnated wife plot in Dracula, it would at least make more sense if Dracula’s reincarnated love was Renfield”, and I think that’s a very intriguing thought, but I’d like to suggest an alternative idea that’s taken over my brain lately: Renfield as Van Helsing’s offscreen “mad wife”, who we briefly hear mentioned in the book but never see or learn any details about.
Let me just lay out my case here:
Van Helsing has a wife who, we’re told, is mentally ill and presumably in an asylum. Her mental breakdown is often assumed to have had something to do with Dracula, even though there’s nothing in the text that explicitly suggests this.
Renfield is a man around Van Helsing’s age (presumably - Renfield is explicitly 59, and Van Helsing seems to be middle-aged) who’s mentally ill and in an asylum. His mental illness is often assumed to have been caused by Dracula, although there’s nothing in the text that explicitly suggests this.
We never see Van Helsing’s wife onscreen, nor do we learn any details about her as a person, her relationship with Van Helsing, or the events that led her to where she is at the time of the book. It’s often theorized to be in some way connected with the death of Van Helsing’s son (also briefly mentioned but not elaborated on), which I think makes sense, but again, we know no details. Did she have a breakdown from the grief of losing her son, or did the same thing that killed Van Helsing Jr drive her out of her mind? Or is it a bit of both?
Van Helsing obviously couldn’t go around referring to a “husband” or male lover in the Victorian era, so it makes total sense that (when he can get away with it) he’d refer to having lost a “wife” to make people understand the kind of grief he’s talking about without giving himself away.
Now, to be clear, I absolutely don’t think this is canon, nor does it work seamlessly as an interpretation of canon. There are a number of nuances in canon that point against it - let’s start by looking at Van Helsing’s full statement about his wife:
“... and me, with my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone—even I, who am faithful husband to this now-no-wife...”
“By Church’s law” means that the Church still considers them married despite Mrs. Van Helsing’s condition, which obviously makes no sense for a relationship between two men that the Church wouldn’t have recognized in the first place. And that would be a very random thing for Van Helsing to throw in there if it wasn’t true.
Also, this is a very delicate topic (and the whole thing touches uncomfortably close to ableism, obviously), but... the way Van Helsing talks about his wife here - “dead to me, though alive by Church’s law”, “no wits, all gone” - makes me picture someone who isn’t as lucid and aware as Renfield seems to be. Like maybe someone who’s in a catatonic state, or who’s so completely lost her sense of reality that she wouldn’t even recognize Van Helsing or be able to interact with him in anything approaching a normal way anymore.
So no, I don’t think it 100% works within canon - but what’s striking to me is how seamlessly it fits into the canon framework if an adaptation or AU fic chose to go this route, while also bringing a ton of new dramatic and emotional potential to the table.
And I can see them making sense as a couple, is the thing. They’re both very intelligent, creative, and intellectually curious (and, perhaps, a bit high-handed at times). Jack writes that Van Helsing has “an absolutely open mind” and “his views are as wide as his all-embracing sympathy” - despite being a scientist whose work is rooted in facts and logic, he’s willing to consider ideas that others might consider absolutely crazy, like the existence of vampires. And the same, of course, is true of Renfield as well. He’s not just a crazy person with random crazy delusions - there’s a clear logic behind the ideas he’s pursuing, and one that isn’t even entirely bizarre when we consider that he exists in a world where vampirism is real.
The way Renfield systematically sets up investigating his theories, moving from one carefully planned stage to another and recording the results in his notebook at each phase, is like a twisted science experiment (again, something Jack specifically notes about him). And I wonder if there isn’t a clue to his past life there: Maybe once upon a time he was doing actual science experiments - unconventional ones, to be sure, maybe pursuing ideas that other people would dismiss as ridiculous, but not anything twisted or harmful. And I can imagine Van Helsing being absolutely fascinated by the work he was doing - that both of them, in fact, would have valued having someone they could always brainstorm with and discuss any idea, without the limitations that narrower minds might place on them.
I’m also kind of obsessed with the dramatic potential of the fact that the first time they interact face-to-face in the book is the scene where Renfield is begging to be let out of the asylum. Like imagine if up to that point, everything’s played out exactly the way it does in the novel - you have the scene of Van Helsing talking about his “wife” (maybe even in a bit more detail, in a scene where he’s trying to comfort Jack or something?), and you have Renfield having his whole plot unfold, and there’s absolutely no hint that there’s any connection between the two. And then suddenly you have that scene, and from the second Van Helsing walks into the room you see that immediate moment of recognition between him and Renfield.
And Jack is oblivious to this, going through the rounds of introducing everybody, and meanwhile Van Helsing and Renfield are just staring at each other in absolute silence. Like cannot take their eyes off each other, the rest of the gang might as well not even be there.
Until, before Jack can get up to Van Helsing’s introduction, Renfield very calmly and clearly says “Hello, Abraham.”
And like, how does that change Van Helsing’s reaction when Renfield starts pleading??? Would he beg Jack to go along with it? Or would he just be standing there frozen, not trusting himself to speak in case his feelings are clouding his ability to think clearly?? How much of an emotional punch does it add to the scene if Renfield can turn to him and say “You used to trust me before; why won’t you trust me now??”
Bear in mind, even in canon Van Helsing admits if it had been up to him, he would have been about to let Renfield go (at least, up until “that last hysterical outburst”). How much more might that be the case if he has an emotional connection to this man on top of everything else?
I think, if it was up to me, I wouldn’t directly tie Dracula into their backstory - that feels too pat and simplistic IMO. But I think I’d have it that their son was preyed on and eventually killed by a vampire, and they didn’t realize what was happening in time to save him. Afterwards, their attempts to piece together what had happened account for both the fact that Van Helsing clearly has some pre-existing knowledge of vampires (but is clearly not the expert vampire hunter pop culture often portrays him as), and also the cause of Renfield’s current obsession. I can imagine the grief and trauma of having lost his son, along with the unreality of starting to understand that something totally outside of the normal world did it, taking a toll on his probably already-not-great mental health until his attempts to solve what happened spiral into a full-on breakdown and end up with the obsession with vampirism we see in the novel.
(How do they have a son as a gay couple in the Victorian era, you ask? I honestly don’t think it’s that hard to justify. You can either say Van Helsing did previously have a wife and was widowed, or that it’s an orphaned kid one of them took in as a ward and considered their son (similar to Jonathan’s situation with Mr. Hawkins, perhaps?)).
I don’t think it was bad, at all, for the novel to leave some things up to the reader’s imagination, but I also really love how this idea allows us to take two tiny scraps of backstory which are either only vaguely hinted at (Van Helsing’s) or almost completely unaddressed (Renfield’s), and combine them into something which can add a lot of depth and emotional impact for both characters. It takes those hints that we know from canon, and even some of the more well-known theories attempting to fill in those gaps, and combines them  into one story that (to me) seems to fit together seamlessly while also fleshing things out beyond canon. It gives us a totally different picture of who Renfield was before he was in the asylum - a brilliant and unconventional scientific mind, a man who had a partner and son he loved and loves deeply - and a sense of everything he lost. And at the same time, it takes Van Helsing’s lost love from being a nameless and faceless woman we know literally nothing about, to a character who’s a major part of the narrative and who we get the chance to know in depth in his own right.
I just think there’s a lot of potential there, if a retelling of Dracula ever chooses to go that route.
127 notes · View notes
atomic-chronoscaph · a day ago
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Dracula, by Bram Stoker (1927, 1928, 1940 editions)
147 notes · View notes
joemerl · 7 hours ago
50+ pages of Dracula tomorrow. That could mean major plot developments or just be an especially long Van Helsing monologue.
80 notes · View notes
emojisarestatussymbols · a day ago
bram stoker’s great grandnephew who wrote a sequel to dracula is appearing in my hometown tonight but tomorrow i have my chemical romance in portland and i want to get a good nights sleep why is it so hard to be goth in the year of our dark lord 2022
72 notes · View notes
bipgrinklebink · 2 days ago
We are now reaching the part of the story where Mina is continuously sent away or kept out of the loop for “out of consideration for her wellbeing because women” despite the fact that while she’s brainstorming ideas, emotionally supporting her husband and new friends, investigating, taking/organizing notes, etc, you got: - Arthur having his regularly scheduled breakdown - Quincey yee-hawin along for the ride, occassionally shooting at bats - Seward making a perpetual Pikachu face - Jonathan doing his best
It’s been a minute since I read the full book, but I’m pretty sure this is going to bite them in the ass hard later.
80 notes · View notes
no-side-us · a day ago
Dracula Daily Liveblog: Oct. 1 - Discrepancy
Tumblr media Tumblr media
So, reading today's entry I thought it was funny and a bit rude that Seward didn't introduce Jonathan considering he also asked to see Renfield, but then I reread the passage and it only mentions four people, that's including Seward, going into Renfield's room:
Tumblr media
This was weird, and I just imagined that Jonathan stood in the hallway and peeked in or something, but then I looked at my copy of Dracula, and it doesn't mention Jonathan asking at all?"
Tumblr media
In fact, during the entire conversation with Renfield, Jonathan isn't mentioned anywhere except for that first question, which would lead me to assume he wasn't present originally.
So I googled a little bit and found a pdf version of Dracula online that does have Jonathan asking to come, as well as saying there were five people, including Seward introducing him:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I guess depending on which version of this scene you have, Seward can either come off as normally polite as he is or just a bit cheekier than usual.
Of course, none of this really means anything, and it's probably just a little error editors tried to fix throughout the multiple times Dracula has been published, but it's an odd little discrepancy I noticed and wanted to share.
Also, happy October!
60 notes · View notes
atundratoadstool · 2 days ago
[Spoilers: Very vague allusions to upcoming events.]
If you read Renfield's September 17th attack on Seward as being directed by Dracula as part of his plan to facilitate his final attack on Lucy (and I do), his sudden knowledge of Lucy and her death and his brief conflation of Lucy/Mina takes on a whole different dimension.
There's going to be a lot of hard-hitting Renfield content coming our way, and my reading of the text has long been that part of what changes for him is that he is suddenly made to confront the reality of the Count's victims. Lucy, however Renfield learned about her, is an abstraction. Mina is a flesh-and-blood human woman who sees Renfield and immediately acknowledges his humanity in turn.
167 notes · View notes
theshadowbastard · 11 hours ago
IMPORTANT: Tomorrow's email (October 3) is the longest entry in all of Dracula Daily, over 15,000 words. Be sure you give yourself plenty of time to read, and don't worry; the rest of the story won't be nearly as long.
65 notes · View notes
leananbloodflower · 17 hours ago
Tumblr media
56 notes · View notes
garnetsfists · a day ago
The men: "We must exclude the woman!"
The consequences: *show that the men chose badly to exclude the woman and should, in fact, not have done that*
Y'all: "The author is a misogynist for the men's decision to exclude the woman"
67 notes · View notes
bebe-benzenheimer · 2 days ago
the guys: 'kay let's leave Mina here while we go find Dracula, it's too dangerous for a woman to join us
that bat outside the window earlier who in no way is Dracula in disguise:
Tumblr media
62 notes · View notes