the description of the weekend storm in today's dracula daily and the time words used to describe it made me wonder what day august 8th 1898 was (since evidence pointed to it being a monday in the story) and.....

[Image ID: a screencap from Google listing August 8, 1898 as a Monday. /end ID]

august 8th, 1898 was a monday. august 8, 2022 is a monday. we are perfectly in sync with the days of the week for all of the chronological entries in dracula. the stars have aligned and fate has painted with a gentle hand our harmonious destiny. this is THE year for dracula

One thing I’m seeing on this re-read of Dracula Daily that I’m already really enjoying, it’s all the little details we didn’t catch before

When we first started we didn’t know who Jonathan Harker was and to us he was just a silly little British man who was ignoring the obvious warning signs, so there was a comedic element to the dramatic irony of him going to Castle Dracula

But now that we know who Jonathan is and we care about him, it hits much harder all the subtle horror elements we missed while focusing on this good friend telling us about his travels

From the first entry, people picking up on the dog barking under his window and being like “is that Dracula? Does it start this early?” Being skeeved out by Dracula’s overly familiar letter to Jonathan, which at first seemed perfectly reasonable except for the name attached at the end, and picking up on all the terrible foreshadowing for what will be Jonathan’s living hell over the next month in his Castle.

And people this time picking up on the bravery of the wife of the innkeeper who gave him a crucifix, begging him to stay or wait, to not go to the castle, of the terror of knowing that Dracula was in correspondence with her husband to get the letter to Jonathan and the sort of subtle threat they must be under at all times, of the significance of “for your mother’s sake” knowing what Dracula does to children. She is no longer perceived as a random background character, but an active player forced to be a bystander who is trying desperately to help this ignorant soul in any way she can even if she knows it might be useless.

I love people realizing Jonathan is skeptical and off-put, but not enough to deter his mission. He’s not oblivious, just making an effort to remain open-minded to the culture and superstitions and beliefs he is not familiar with, since he’s aware it will be wildly different from his own (to the best of his ability for being an Englishman from the 1890s) and pointedly dismissing the things that might be red flags as an attempt to rationalize because nothing truly concerning has happened yet to provoke him to leave, and he doesn’t want to be deterred by something he’s getting worked up for for no reason yet, he couldn’t do his job otherwise and people are depending on him

Idk, I just like this deeper analysis and thought now that people are already familiar and attached to his character, and now know what happens, so they can properly point out when something is foreshadowing later events or themes in the novel, and they can pick up on it quicker

Even something as simple as people noticing the other meals mentioned in the first entry because of all the focus on Paprika Hendl last year makes me happy :)

I like that they are giving our protagonist more credit now, knowing the character he turns into later in the novel (a badass)

It is satisfying :)))

one thing I suddenly got very not-normal about is how mina is, of course, praised for her gentle heart, but her resolute mind also, and she is called gallant, and she is often described with words / emotion that the novel usually saves for men – to the point when van helsing says:

Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man's brain, a brain that a man should have were he much gifted, and a woman's heart.

and I was thinking how this was gradually introduced, but then actually, no

she has been our dear mina forever, but her full name is masculine in roots: wilhelmina. a female derivative of wilhelm (wilhelm, or william, the conquerer is the first who jumps to mind). and you know what the name means? resolute protection. she has always been there, a quiet warrior, a true protector, even when she herself was being protected – and she never asked her men to protect her. they just collectively decided to, and it was bittersweet and wholesome, but mina was anxious for action too. she, in fact, kept working her best to protect her mancrowd in the meantime. she was giving instructions, using imperatives right and left, strategizing like a war general.

it's just so dear to me that wonderful madam mina is there, but there is also hiding in her that feral side, commanding respect on a whole other level, that makes men count her equal. my feral wilhelmina is the best.

"For your mother's sake."

It hits so hard, on multiple levels. First, what this might mean for her. It's her final effort, the most impactful thing she says after religion, superstition, outright pleading on her knees and crying all fail. She knows that she can't stop him from going, but at the very least she will try her best to protect him as much as she can. She places the crucifix around his neck herself, doesn't just hand it to him.

Did she lose a child to Dracula in the past? Is she seeing echoes of her own son in Jonathan's face? Or perhaps there have been brave young men who tried to fight back against him, who deliberately went to the castle and never returned. Maybe Jonathan is the first person she's met who is actually trying to go there, and while she knows it can only end in his death, the idea of letting anyone go willingly to that evil place is more than she can bear. She's giving up a piece of her own protection. The Count has been sending letters to her husband; he was the one who suggested Jonathan stay here. He knows of her. If she shows any resistance it could mean greater danger for herself, and giving Jonathan her crucifix means losing a powerful totem of self-protection. If he actually listened to her warning, she can probably expect a terrible fate of her own; maybe even just giving him the crucifix alone would be enough to ensure that. But again, whether he reminds her of her own lost son or just because he doesn't know what he's getting himself into, she can't bear to do nothing. She places herself in the role of his mother here. "For my sake," she's saying, "let me do what little I can to save you. Please."

Jonathan is an orphan. We don't know the circumstances of his childhood, but it's possible that he never even knew his mother. (It's my headcanon.) Even if he did, she has been gone for a long time now. And yet these are the words he can't argue with in the end. He was already taking her seriously, and trying to treat her with respect. Her warnings were obviously distressing to him, but there's no way he can actually turn back now. His livelihood depends on this trip, he has no actual evidence to justify leaving, and he also wants so badly to live up to Mr. Hawkins' trust in him. He is already "thinking of his father" (or the closest he has) when he says he has to go to the castle. And yet, the care and fear and love this woman is showing for him hits so hard. I wonder if he is thinking of his actual mother when he accepts the crucifix. Whether the concept of her or an actual memory... Or maybe he too is placing her in the role of his mother here. Maybe, in keeping the crucifix (and not just with him, but around his neck where she placed it, even as he rides away) he is saying yes to that implicit request as well. "I'll let you care for me. I'll accept it gratefully." It's the first motherly care he has probably felt in many long years.

In this book, children are placed in terrible danger again and again, and most of the time they can't be saved. Parents and parental figures are equally doomed, leaving our heroes all orphaned in a sense, unable to rely on any greater source of wisdom or comfort. They have to take things into their own hands and deal with the problem alone, despite still being caught up in grief for what they've lost - a kind of coming of age in that sense. There's even a literal version of this happening with both Arthur and Jonathan (and Mina) specifically, when their father figures die and leave them with sudden new responsibilities. And of course, the inheritances from these father figures help in distinct and immensely useful ways, even as they remain absent from the story throughout. They haunt the margins at best until death steals them away completely, and their illnesses tend to serve to divide our heroes from one another when they needed to be united sooner. I personally don't count van Helsing as a father figure really, but if you do then he is the only one who manages to be around and be directly helpful (and even then, he's unable to save Lucy), even though all the fathers we hear from are loved and loving. But we do actually meet a few mothers, and they are usually unable to alter the story despite being more present. Their efforts to save their children are misdirected and only bring about their own death as well, in the end. Lucy's mother seems to mean well but everything she does directly makes everything harder; the mother at the castle later tries to avenge her child possibly against the wrong person, and in any case is unable to succeed. But here, the innkeeper's wife with her crucifix manages what no other mother does. Even though she assumes this to be another wasted effort (in fact, she can't bear to remain in the room with him afterwards; re: Dracula did such a good job with the hopelessness in her voice when she says the 'mother's sake' line), her assistance helps Jonathan to survive. His 'inheritance' from this momentary mother-figure isn't just the physical crucifix, though that is useful (and also the only inheritance a mother leaves for a child throughout the book, even when it would be expected and easy and make complete sense to do so, ahem). It's also the first and the most knowledgeable and the most effective aid given to a 'child' throughout the entire book.

"Right over the town is the ruin of Whitby Abbey, which was sacked by the Danes, and which is the scene of part of 'Marmion,' where the girl was built up in the wall."

there's a beautiful sort of irony that, in 1897, Mina was excited to visit the ruins of Whitby Abbey, not for the historic church itself, but because it was in her fave gothic novel, Marmion... ... and now, over a hundred years later, tourists from around the world visit Whitby Abbey, not for the historic church itself, but because it was in their fave gothic novel Dracula

I saw your DD graph asking for other ideas, so... if you still have any desire to do further Dracula graphs I'd be curious to see how the word count per character breaks down (not how much they speak but how much they write. Adding all their diary entries together, etc.). Obviously Mina wins by default from having typed up the whole novel but outside of that detail, how much did each person author?

Thank you so much for this ask! What an interesting data set this one is! Lots of unexpected information.

So first off, if you just want to visualize the author breakdown, ta-dahhhh!

Seward was staunchly in the lead, talking his head off and burning through those wax recording drums like no ones business. Poor Mina for having to transcribe it all. In total his words made up 39.3% of Dracula. Nearly 40%!

Seward unsurprisingly had the most individual entries overall at 47, and had the longest streak for being the narrator in an entry at 10 days (09/02 - 09/11) with Mina following right behind at 9 days (08/10 - 08/19)

Mina surprisingly was 3rd overall both in word count and number of entries. She wasn't even in the top 3 for most words in a day which is as follows.

1 - Seward October 3rd - 9942 words

2 - Seward September 29th - 7206 words

3 - Jonathan October 3rd - 5944 words

Van Helsing only had 9 entries total but still came in number 4 for word count, in front of Lucy. It's interesting to note that the amount a person writes doesn't correlate to the amount of time they are being written about/appear. Which is why Arthur and Quincey don't even beat out the newspaper clippings for words, lol.

There are lots of authors we only hear from a single time, like Sister Agatha. So I've decided to make a small fry pie as well. (Authors under ~500 words)

The captain of the Demeter and Van Helsing both had more days written than Lucy! Though I didn't break up number of entries, like when the log of the Demeter had 3 or 4 on one day or Lucy wrote a letter and in her diary.

If there is any data I haven't presented here that you're interested in feel free to tag me or shoot me an ask like this lovely person did!

On Horror, Queerness, Mirrors, and Dracula

Your wish is my command (you may or may not regret this). 

Here’s the thing - I love horror, and I love patterns, and I think the best horror is always in some sense symmetrical.  It might not be obvious, but what’s the point of staring into an abyss if you can’t see your own face reflected back?  The symmetry itself comes in any number of different twists, whether it is familial, communal, erotic, or individual, and most of these apply to Bram Stoker’s Dracula. 

The centre of our novel rests on the Harkers.  So, starting with Jonathan - his experience in Transylvania is a twisted version of his life back home.  Dracula is reserved but eloquent, seemingly caring and occasionally affectionate, he reads train schedules and they spend hours upon hours in conversation; which is a dark mirror to Jonathan’s train schedule-loving, passionate but serious Mina.  It may even be said that the Count is re-enacting a caricature of traditional heteronormative domesticity - he maintains the household, waits on his guest himself, and blows him kisses from the stairs.  His possessiveness of Jonathan is the only way a vampire like Dracula is capable of understanding the bond Jonathan shares with Mina.  The Count states that he, too, feels love; but he is written by a closeted gay man in the late 19th century, so his imitation of married life is both a lie and a tragedy.  He is a shorthand for forbidden, wrong, and corrupting desires. 

At the same time, Mina herself also has a same-sex connection in the beginning of the story, and her relationship with Lucy mirrors the relationship between Jonathan and Dracula.  They cling to each other, in a sense; despite being excited about the prospect of their impending marriages, there is some trepidation associated with this new stage in life.  A common part of a dowry used to be a shroud, simply due to the frequency at which Victorian wives died in childbirth soon after the wedding; and even provided a survival, the transition to married life was still a loss of innocence.  As such, Lucy’s affection for Mina is the last expression of her girlhood, and she herself is the personification of Mina’s.  Lucy is, therefore, the direct antithesis of the Count; her death and subsequent rising change Mina the same way that Dracula does Jonathan, establishing a firm duality between the Harkers and their respective vampires. 

The other characters are reflections of each other, as well; the suitors defend while the brides terrify, Van Helsing wants to preserve life while Renfield wishes to consume it - and even further, the old Hungarian lady cares enough about  a stranger to give Jonathan a cross for protection, while Lucy’s own mother lets Dracula into the house herself, selfishly ignorant of her daughter’s needs and the doctor’s orders.  Another parallel is drawn again between Jonathan and Renfield, who represents directly what he could have been, had he not escaped from Dracula’s grasp; which makes Renfield’s vehement, last-ditch attempt to protect Mina perhaps all the more poignant.  In him, she sees the resilience of Jonathan’s humanity; while he gets to see exactly what she could become after her turning  - in Dracula himself.  These dualities are integral to the story’s thematic structure, and therefore inextricable from each character’s development. 

There is really too much to say about each individual dynamic to fit into one rant, but for the current purposes, I can forgo the details.  They all converge as it is on Jonathan and Mina, and thus, the central theme of this story is devotion.  If Jonathan had truly broken, like Renfield, Mina would have stayed by his side; and if she had fully turned, like Dracula, he would have adored whatever shred of her still remained.  In madness and in death, in happiness and sorrow, in sickness and in health - until the echoes start to sound like wedding vows. 

@stripedshirtgay​

@bluberimufim​

Imagine reading the text and honestly somehow getting that Jonathan sees Mina as tainted. Like imagine seriously thinking that…when he literally refused to hear it when SHE said she was tainted and she shouldn’t touch him and he said “nope” and held her anyway. Or when he said he’d become a vampire too for her. Or when he refers to her as his “poor wronged darling” because he doesn’t BLAME her for what happened and still refers to her as “perfection” or when he literally ‘took her in his arms and kissed her.’ Like thats such an absolutely inaccurate and rancid interpretation.

I've taken to listening to Re: Dracula either when I'm cooking or when I'm doing laundry, and I've gotta say; the sound design in this? Excellent. I'm sitting in a laundrette, people wandering in and out, it's bright outside and a solid 17c or so, there's people walking and shopping in the street, and yet I felt so hauntingly alone during the Jonathan segments I had to catch up on today. It was beautiful, honestly, how utterly creeping it was. The sense of desolation in his voice as he scrambles around the house, finding only locked doors? I was getting chills despite the fact that I'm boiling to death from the weather.

Also both Mina and Lucy are so goddamn sweet. I love their voices. The sleepover vibes are real. It's wild the sort of things you pick up in audio that you miss in reading, huh.

I got an ask about the parallels between the older man/younger man relationships, specifically Dracula/Jonathan, and Van Helsing/Seward in Dracula but since it includes spoilers I'm going to include it under the cut!

What you said about old men having complex relationships with young men in Dracula got me thinking! Dracula is the old man. Young Jonathan comes to him in his land. Then Dracula does the same, and hurts him more. Van Helsing is the old man. Young Jack comes to him in his land. Years later Van Helsing does the same, and helps him more. There's power imbalance between the Count and Jonathan, which the Count exploits to the exptreme. Van Helsing and student Jack had mutual respect and no abuse of power. Dracula fed on Jonathan to restore his own life before the journey, Jack sucked van Helsing's (unclean|) blood to save his life. Due to this, van Helsing owes him a favor and they're bound by mutual love. Dracula is an old man who prays on the young man under his power, van Helsing is a guide and a role model. Funnily, both of them touch the younger man unprompted or barge in, but Dracula is invasive and power establishing, while van Helsing is genuine friendliness and familiarity.

You are so right! But there's another relationship that gets lost in all this: Renfield and Jack's antagonistic relationship. (Dracula Spoilers Below)

I think its interesting how much Jack becomes Renfield's tormentor, as a kind of inverse of what happens to Jonathan in Dracula's castle. Jack's asylum is in fact a large home, similar to a mansion, and he chooses Renfield to obssess over just like how Dracula chooses Jonathan.

In terms of structure I find it really clever that the majority of Jack's interactions and fascination with Renfield happen after Jonathan attempts to escape the castle, and way before Van Helsing enters the story. Its like a pendulum swing, going from Dracula, who is very clearly a predator, to Renfield, who is misunderstood yet enthralled by Dracula, to finally Van Helsing, who is seen as a savior.

Renfield doesn't get any respect for his personal well being and his privacy is compromised because of Jack. I think there is a scene where, after Renfield gets sick from eating the birds, Jack takes his diary and attempts to read it. This reminded me of how Dracula read Jonathan's letters and burned the shorthand written one to Mina. Also, how Renfield attacks and drinks Jack's blood after solitary confinement is reminiscent of how Jonathan attacks Dracula in his coffin, scarring him permanently. They are both lashing out at the abuse they've received.

Then there's Renfield and Van Helsing both being subjected to Jack's study of them. And I honestly believe Renfield reminded Jack of Van Helsing in some way or the other. So there is something to be said of all three relationships. All three old men maintain a level of secrecy from their younger male counterparts, and they all desire to overcome loneliness and become relevant again. For Dracula that's power and conquest, for Renfield, validation and a longer life, and for Van Helsing, to be respected and part of a family again.

I'm sure there are more parallels that others can point out. But these were the ones that I could recall easily.

It Should Have Been Jonathan: Why Swapping Jonathan and Mina's Roles for the Blood Ceremony Makes Dracula a Better Story Both Thematically and Plotwise

Bram Stoker did not write it this way, so swapping Jonathan in is not a headcanon, but rather an adaptational choice that adaptations like Murray Mysteries or fic writers (like me!) choose to make over and over again. Here's why you should engage with this premise.

(No spoilers for those caught up to October 3rd of Dracula Daily)

(non-graphic mention of rape, sexual assault, etc)

The Story As It Is: The Good Points

Jonathan um. Goes Through it this novel. If you hadn't noticed. Mina takes care of him a lot, and after the blood ceremony, Jonathan gets to take care of her. This is very sweet, and I do enjoy that both Mina and Jonathan take turns rather than Jonathan always needing help.

It's not like it's unrealistic. Dracula would totally retaliate against the men fighting against him by targeting Mina. He super would see this as very apt revenge, and he's definitely that brand of sexist that sees women as a prize.

This plot point goes out of its way to frame the actions of the men in excluding Mina as utterly disastrous, which is cool.

Mina as the Victim: What is it Accomplishing + How Did She Get There

Mina spends most of the novel taking care of the people Dracula's victimized. She is a force to be reckoned with, but as Stoker wrote her she is a very good sort of English woman, pious, obedient to the men, respectable, etc. etc. Although she and Lucy have very different characters, when Dracula targets them they serve the same role as good English women who are coming under attack by Dracula, an evil Eastern European man. In Lucy's case he literally kills her and in her place is a hot sexually impure corruption of the original person. Victorian nightmare fuel. In addition, there are all kinds of sexual non-con rape vibes to what he does to both Lucy and Mina. Hot forceful foreign men are invading England and targeting good women. That's the whole fear that Dracula represents.

This manifestation of xenophobia doesn't hold up at all. For me, it's always been the worst element of the novel. I don't find it compelling.

Something else you might have picked up from this update: martyr talk martyr talk martyr talk. While (trust me) Mina is still smart and still given a lot of agency by Stoker to break her own curse, after the blood ceremony, she suffers Very Piously. Like a hair's breadth away from publishing a video entitled "How To Suffer A Tormentor From Hell in A God Honoring Way" on her Youtube Channel.

I personally don't find this interesting. I don't think it holds up. I don't want to see Mina suffer like a Perfect Little Christian. I want to see her kick ass and take names.

In conclusion: the driving forces behind Mina's attack and trauma are at best uninspired and outdated, and there is a very nasty undercurrent of xenophobia and sexism there as well.

I don't love it. I'm either bored or actively turned off by what Stoker is trying to say.

Jonathan as the Victim: What Could It Accomplish?

Dracula choosing to attack Jonathan again would shift the narrative so that it becomes a story about an abuser who will Not Let Go. An abuser who follows across a continent. An abuser who waits until you've just started to recover from the first round of trauma and started to feel safe again to start an onslaught even more vicious and concerted than the last.

I think Stoker laid the groundwork for this twist to be more terrifying and compelling than for Mina to be targeted 2/3rds of the way through. Obviously Dracula is an abuser no matter what, but it so much more terrifying to me to think of him playing a long-term game of cat and mouse over like 6 months with one man, than it is to see him target Mina over the span of three days.

This is also in character for Dracula. I agree with the common interpretation that Dracula continued to target Lucy even when it got ridiculously difficult and dangerous to continue because he can't stand to lose a test of dominance.

If we carry that over to Jonathan there is absolutely no way that Dracula would be ok with learning Jonathan escaped and is recovering. He would Hate that. He would absolutely want to target Jonathan again.

So you remember "I too can love" "tonight is mine" the gaps in the journal? All that abuse that is hinted at and never explored? The same sort of sexual assault motifs that are so present in Lucy and Mina's attacks? The implication that Jonathan was fed on by Dracula? All these hints that Stoker doesn't do anything with or develop further? Well Making Jonathan the one who undergoes the blood ceremony gives us a very natural chance to discuss them again.

In conclusion: Jonathan's history with the Count makes him being the victim (again) a more compelling story. We've watched the Count slowly escalate aggression with him over the course of a novel, and this final attempt to literally claim Jonathan's soul and make him a thrall is the natural conclusion of that. To me those are some compelling stakes

Jonathan being Targeting Makes for Less Plotholes (and less Infuriatingly Sexist Plotpoints)

Not that Mina being excluded is unrealistic or unworthy of engaging with in the original novel but I find it to be such a drag

And actually to a certain point it is unrealistic to me because I think the decision to completely cut her off and stop talking to her about anything comes completely out of left field. Everyone was acting like she'd work with them in some capacity right up until Van Helsing says differently. I find that jarring.

Switching the target to Jonathan eliminates that plotpoint entirely, which I think is cool. Maybe Stoker never would have written Mina as one of the boys, but it's not the 19th century anymore and we can write Mina however we want. I think having a Mina that sticks up for herself and refuses to be excluded is neat.

But on what grounds would they choose to exclude Jonathan? Well I actually think that some obvious solutions present themselves.

Murray Mysteries goes the "Jonathan you have PTSD you shouldn't retraumatize yourself route" which works for them, since it's a 21st century retelling

But I actually think it could potentially make sense for Van Helsing to want to exclude Jonathan, and to need to be secretive about it.

So you know how in the canon Dracula gives Mina his blood partially because his intention was to make himself a spy? The plan was to use an unwitting Mina to his advantage but the polycule bursting in killed that idea.

Well if I were Van Helsing, I would immediately suspect that the Count had fucked with Jonathan at the castle. I mean it would make so much sense wouldn't it? Jonathan was there for two months, he could be compromised in so many different ways.

If Van Helsing had these suspicions, then it would be the natural next step to try and exclude Jonathan from the business as completely and utterly as possible under whatever flimsy excuses he can make up (and this man has been making up flimsy excuses for the whole novel so it's in character).

This adaptational change would lead into Jonathan getting attacked again very smoothly, except in this version, Van Helsing's reasoning has more grounds to it than just Sexism, so he would be not only a smarter character, but also one I'd want to punch less.

I think that makes for a stronger plot

Also it seems very natural to me that Jonathan wouldn't realize he'd been attacked again by Dracula. More natural than Mina not realizing. This man has been having PTSD nightmares and flashbacks about Count Dracula attacking him for the entire summer and early fall. Canonically his trauma made it difficult for him to separate dreams from reality in the past. He would just assume they were particularly nasty dreams.

This would also apply to Mina not noticing Jonathan was being fed on as well. She's used to him not looking well and having bad nights. It would not immediately be apparent to her that this was different that the usual.

In conclusion: Jonathan being the one who is attacked opens the door to other obvious plot changes that create a better story structurally.

Okay You've Convinced Me, I Want to Explore This

Listen to Murray Mysteries! Listen to Murray Mysteries if I haven't convinced you, it's really good and it's the only adaptation I know of that actually adapts the Polycule in a good way.

Read my series! I don't mean to self-promote but if you couldn't tell I feel incredibly strongly about this premise and I don't see people tapping into the potential so I've had to do it myself. Strange Wonders is a series of short stories that explore the plot of Dracula if this change had happened. The goal was to create something that mimicked Bram Stoker's tone and style as much as possible, while being the story I liked better in my head. The first in the series, Uncommon Horrors and Unnatural Hurts is Dracula Daily friendly, and the next in the series The Resilience of the Dawn will be Dracula Daily friendly by October 4th. I'm still updating as well although the story is technically complete and has a climax.

here some would stand between you and death by princ3ssf33t is a great little one-shot fic I've found that deals with the role reversal and features some stellar Jonmina

There is a Pleasure in the Pathless Woods by calliopes_pen is another epic reimagining where both the Harkers are targeted by Dracula

Your fic/art/content here!! Endless potential.

TL;DR

Having Jonathan undergo the blood ceremony instead of Mina makes for richer horror, stronger character arcs, less teethgrinding sexism, and less plotholes. The Dracula fandom should be exploring it more.

quickly pointing out that the "full moon" around august 10 described in today's dracula daily matches almost exactly with the "full moon" TONIGHT, august 11, 2022.... coincidence?? i think NOT!!! THIS IS THE YEAR OF DRACULA

The thing that kills me about the Oct 11th entry with Mina insisting that should she turn into a vampire, she wants the others to kill her, is not just that Jonathan does not promise to do that, but that the way we hear Seward describe the scene—Quincy promising first, Jonathan brokenly asking if he has to and hesitating, the way we know about Jonathan’s private holy vow to Mina in his journal—is that I wonder if Jonathan is drawing his line in the sand.

He’s already made up his mind about what he will do if Mina turns, and now with Mina making the suitor squad promise to kill her, I wonder if now his fear and intention has subtly shifted.

You can almost hear it in that scene as Seward is describing Jonathan’s body language, but as soon as Quincy steps up to make his vow, I can almost sense the shift radiating off Jonathan.

He now has to contend with not only Dracula, but if it comes down to it, also against everyone else there, because he cannot allow Mina to come to harm, by any hand, especially not his own.

I think he was re-evaluating his priorities and loyalties. Yes, he is friends with all these people and loves them and wants them to work together to defeat Dracula and save Mina, but now he has resolved to the fact that there is a possibility of a last stand of “us” (him and Mina) vs. “them” (suitor squad), even if it’s not what Mina wants, he would do anything to keep her safe.

And if you follow the subtext that Jonathan was bit too, he knows he’s on limited time as well at this point, if he even remembers being bit, but regardless would let Mina turn him if he didn’t remember. He knows killing her would not save him like she thinks it would, besides the fact that doing so would destroy him. He would rather be rest assured in the damnation of his own soul than have it utterly destroyed in the act of ending Mina’s life. I don’t think he could go on, and I think he would find it useless regardless, because he would rather die than kill Mina.

And he would rather harm everyone else than let anymore harm come to Mina, even if that means he has to cut down those nearest to him if it means saving her.

When he promised to himself to let himself become undead with her, he’s not only damning himself and Mina, but the whole of London and beyond. And if he’s willing to let the world burn for Mina, I’m willing to bet he’d let his friends burn too.

He now has an ulterior motive and while everyone else will be keeping a close eye on Mina, he will be keeping a close eye on everyone else, because he can no longer trust them not to follow through on their promise to her.

He doesn’t promise.

He won’t kill her.

And you’ll have to go through him if you want to try.

I love the mention of Ellen Terry in Our Correspondent's account of the Bloofer Lady. For decades she was the leading actress of the Lyceum Theatre that Bram Stoker helped manage, so the shout-out here is incredibly cute.

I think the affectionate vibe of our heroic polycule may be a reflection of how much Stoker loved his company of thespians, and of the special relationships that can form among a community of artists where people may be a bit more free and vulnerable with each other than people in more conventional trades.

@re-dracula

Hello! I was wondering what you make of Seward's phrase "is it possible that love is all subjective or all objective?" I've seen people allude to different meanings on the phrase but I can't quite figure out what it means

I wanted to wait until after 11 October to answer this ask, just so I didn't have to spoiler for the context of my reply. Which is that... my instinct is to oppose Jonathan and Seward's loves for this one. Specifically, in their reactions to the women they love becoming vampires. (I'm choosing Jack specifically to talk about because we get in his head more than we do for the other suitors, though by actions one could argue they fall more on the same side as he does.)

Firstly, let's take a brief moment to talk about the specific words used. Subjective generally means dictated by personal taste, and objective would be based on fact or truth. So, a love that is all one or the other could be very different depending on what the person you love is like. For example, an objective love would appreciate someone's virtues, while a subjective one might find things to love even in their flaws. Or on a larger scale, and much more relevant to how the phrase is used in the book... what would happen when the person you love is becoming a vampire, a creature that is factually and objectively evil and wrong? How would you react, how would you feel?

It depends on your type of love.

Jonathan's love is all subjective. Even though he absolutely hates and despises vampires, once he knows Mina is at risk of becoming one he resolves to join her if need be. He sees her rejected by God when the communion wafer burns her forehead, and he says 'actually no, I think the holiest kind of love is the one that would lead me to join her in her unholy state'. Even when Mina outright appeals to him to kill her if she is too far gone - an appeal to his objective understanding, for him to express his love in a way that confronts the truth of what she would become - Jonathan remains silent and in doing so refuses to make that promise. It's implied that he would be willing to fight the other men in order to protect her, even though they are his allies and friends. His beliefs warp around the shape of his love. He will destroy himself and others for the sake of his love, even if he knows through painful experience how objectively evil vampires are.

Jack's love meanwhile is all objective. Even though he didn't fully understand what a vampire was, he began to lose his love for Lucy as soon as he saw her acting in that way. In fact every time she was acting out of character to be more vampiric before her death, he seemed to notice and be a little put off by it, even though he didn't really seem to realize so much at the time. He outright says this quote when he is watching vampire!Lucy and realizing that he doesn't feel as horrible about mutilating the body of the woman he loved as he would have expected. When he learns Lucy has become a monster, he begins to feel repulsed by her - a process completed when he sees her up close and outright says his love for her is gone: "At that moment the remnant of my love passed into hate and loathing; had she then to be killed, I could have done it with savage delight." His determination to destroy the Thing she now is completely separates her in his mind from her living self. His love gives way to the objective facts. He will help to kill her, and gladly, because what she has become disgusts him... because what she has become is objectively evil.

Obviously, their experiences are different, and perhaps it's not quite such a true binary. Mina's gradual transformation, combined with Jonathan's pre-existing knowledge, is quite different from Jack's abrupt introduction to Lucy's vastly changed self and to the idea of the supernatural at all. But for the purposes of examining this quote, I think it works quite well to set them up at opposite ends of that scale.

.

It's also kind of curious because it calls back to another great line of Seward's: "(Mem., under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell?)" The context of that line is Seward struggling to resist his dark impulses with regards to his treatment of Renfield. And he says this after having noticed himself actively doing something he says he'd normally avoid like the pit of hell, so that means he was approaching it until he caught himself. This is a struggle he repeatedly faces with Renfield, finding himself longing for a cause that he would consider it worthwhile abandoning his morals for, so that he could just give in to these urges.

But while Jack Seward is the person most drawn to the darkness, as we get introduced to the vampires are representatives of the ultimate darkness he backs firmly away. It's only in isolation that he feels so attracted to amoral experimentation; when together with his friends he pulls himself back to be more firmly opposed. His treatment of Renfield is a mess the entire time, don't get me wrong. He never really does right by him. But he doesn't seem to feel that same urge to push him in such a cruel way merely for his own interest/satisfaction. It becomes in the service of a greater goal, the objectively good idea of fighting Dracula. (Again, not saying his methods are good, but his motivation shifts.) He's always been conscious of an idea of what is right to do and he actively tries to follow that, with much greater success when not left to his own devices.

Meanwhile Jonathan has never felt such an intense draw to the darkness. He survived months alone surrounded by evil influences, and it only increased his determination to remain himself/human. He hates the vampires and he feels no true allure to the idea of being like them (outside the allure everyone feels when being hypnotized by them, etc.). He wanted nothing more than a normal happy life, he never longed for a cause that would be worth throwing his morals away. And yet, when Mina begins to turn we see Jonathan decide that this is the circumstance under which he will not avoid the pit of hell. This is the cause he can dedicate himself to as fully as any madman. Jonathan never felt the need to philosophize about trying to avoid such things before he was exposed to them by others, because he has no inherent urge to seek them out. But he also lacks that restrictive hold when a reason does come along.

(To visualize: if there's a pit, then Jack is the person who keeps wandering closer, desperately wanting to lean over the edge and see what's inside. Knowing this about himself, he's tied a rope around his waist to ensure he doesn't slip too far. Jonathan never even went near until he abruptly decides to sprint up and swan-dive straight into it when he thinks Mina's fallen in.)

on a scale of 1 to Feral Dracula-Obsessed Gremlin, how normal are you about Dracula Daily / Re: Dracula? Because I'm currently hovering at: