#Jonathan: “But I don't want to kill you Mina :(”

[immediatebreakfast]

Think, dear, that there have been times when brave men have killed their wives and their womenkind, to keep them from falling into the hands of the enemy. Their hands did not falter any the more because those that they loved implored them to slay them. 

Mina I love you, and your resolution against the poison that runs through your blood which is transforming you into a creature far away from yourself, with the weight of your own guilt on your back as you see death in every corner, but... I don't really think this is the most convincing argument for your self orchestrated murder at the hands of your husband.

Out of all of the things that Mina had sais which leads to the reading of the Burial service, this is the most representative of her now fragile state of mind. Mina is by no means a weak person, nor someone who turns away from problems when she is resolute in finding a solution, however these two virtues are a dangerous combination to have when Mina now thinks that there are only two paths for her from now on: Self found salvation, or absolute destruction.

We cannot hold these suicidal thoughts against Mina after she went through such traumatic events that clashed with everything she believed in, it's not fair to her nor what the narrative tells us. It's a tragedy on its own to see how Mina tries to make sense of an act that wasn't her fault in any way, both as a woman and as religious believer, and concludes that her only two solutions stem from begging forgiveness to god with a sacrifice. If it's the Count (the perpretator), or herself (the victim) it would be fine either way.

So, Mina tries to engage Jonathan in what I can only speculate to call a murder-suicide pact because she knows that he is the only one out of the group who could stop the solution she put in motion. Mina is appealing to his devotion to her, his love, his solemn duty in a way that calls to the duty of a soldier against an enemy to ride Jonathan's sense of Justice towards her suicidal suffering, while unintentionally painting what is Jonathan's worst nightmare in place.

The narrative doesn't hold this against Mina in any way, it would not be fair for it since it's clear that Mina is not in a stable state of mind right now, in the sense that she is disregarding her personhood to paint an idea of a Woman to be saved or killed, instead of Mina Harker who has suffered while still standing.

[yallemagne]

A lot of people wanna put their blorbos through the wringer, but when it comes to one Mina Harker (and the same can be said of Lucy Westenra, but she gets less screentime so I think of Mina a lot more just on principle), I never want a single bad thing to ever happen to her. I can't write anything where bad things happen to her, I can't even read things where bad things happen to her. You may be like "yallemagne, that's literally what the novel Dracula is" and exactly, that's why I beef with the book so much. I can hardly tolerate it because so much of the book is Mina being wronged, and Bram really should have scrapped the whole thing and written a book where Mina just has a very good couple of months The End.

[astrangergivingthestrangewelcome]

As much as I am very much enthralled by "holiest love" propaganda, it is the time of year where I would like to once again state that I think people on here make it way way way too black and white. Like Jonathan's willingness to follow Mina into the dark is the absolute only way to exhibit true love. I don't think that's true. I see takes every year that sort of vilify the four men for being so willing to kill Lucy... Lucy is dead. Lucy is very much dead. Who knows how much of the old Lucy would have presented itself in vamp!Lucy if given the time to develop, but no matter what the new vampire Lucy would have not been anywhere close to the same person.

If you want to engage in how it works in the novel's canon, there's no such thing as a "good" vampire or "tortured" vampire or whatever. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, souls are real and you lose them when you become a vampire + you lose whatever kindness + goodness you have to become a bloodthirsty murderer.

It's not a heartless response from any of the four men to see vampire Lucy and say, "oh my God, this is not her, something has taken up residence and her corpse is being used to enact harm, we have to put an end to this because we loved her" I don't think that is an unreasonable response and I don't think that that's an unloving response either.

There are two scenarios here, one saying "I'll love you even when you're gone from yourself, I'll love you when your best parts have been taken away never to be returned, I'll love you when it will bring me nothing other than the knowledge that I love" with the counterpoint to that being "are you kidding yourself though. Is the person who you loved even still there. Who is this for?"

And the other being "I'll love you so much that I will protect and fight for the memory of your goodness and your soul. I will not shrink from whatever it takes to grant you peace and free you from this horrible curse which was itself inflicted on you through great violence" with the counterpoint to that being "tell me again how all that violent staking was so righteous + different from the vampire's attack. That's God's peace you saw on her face, right? How could you doubt it?"

You're allowed to prefer one over the other etc, but like. It's all subjective. Love is subjective. There's not one right answer. And people are going to buy into different things depending on which metaphors + subtexts we like best, what our belief systems are, etc. Let's keep the conversations open. Either one could be represented anywhere on the scale of good to bad depending on the type of story you want to tell.

[see-arcane]

Mina: Jonathan hates vampires, but that is what I shall become once I have lost myself to Dracula's blood... he’ll despise me... 

Jonathan if Mina did turn into a vampire: Is the sun hurting your eyes? I’ll kill it if it’s bothering you. I’ll kill the sun

Mina: I am already unclean in God's eyes, what must Jonathan think? <:c

Jonathan, making direct eye contact with the Almighty: Look at me. No, look at me. If You don't un-damn my wife WITHOUT wiping Your hands and giving her the 'Oh well, guess you're getting martyred' bullshit and nix the bat bastard's 400-year-long 'I can do whatever I want because I'm a special little Scholomance boy' spree within 30 days or less, I will get myself turned, devour Hell itself, and then I Am Coming Up There to Skin You.

[thegoatsongs]

Van Helsing on Oct 4, on the phonograph: My friends the Harkers. I am on my knees begging for you to take the day off while the rest of us investigate. Spend time of quality, as you say. Have a lot of water. Friend John how do I turn this off.

Jonathan and Mina: Let's review the October documents, that could be useful and a good distraction.

Mina's documents for Jonathan to read: "I am crying constantly because Jonathan is keeping secrets from me. I'm having Stange Dreams and memory gaps that resemble Jonathan's and Lucy's. But I don't want to upset him with dreams. I'm so lonely. I'll keep acting cheerful and seek intimacy from him so to not reveal my dark thoughts."

Jonathan's documents for Mina to read: "I told Van Helsing I would sell my soul to kill Dracula. I have decided that, if it comes to it, to dwell in what I know Hell incarnate is, for eternity, to never leave Mina alone in the dark."

Jonathan and Mina: ...Welp.

[serial-serializednovelreader]

I think that adaptations who leave Quincey out or make him a horrible person (see 2020 Dracula) miss the point. He's not just a comic relief. he's the oathmaker. He swears to Lucy when she rejects him he'll always be her friend, and he follows through. He swears to Mina he'll not rest until SHE rests, and he follows through. He swears he will kill Dracula to Jonathan, and they shake hands, and he follows through. He gives Dracula one of the two fatal bows, and bleeds and dies, like he swore he would, for those he loves.

Wow, Anon. That was beautiful. You came to my inbox, absolutely destroyed me, and I'm thanking you for it. /pos

You're so right, though. He is the oathmaker, he follows through on his promises no matter what. Also, the Oathmaker is such a cool title is that a thing I missed?? Can that be what we call him forever now if we don't already??

But here I am, doing the exact same thing as the producers/directors, writing him off as comic relief (I did a little more than that, but still)!! I am truly sorry to Quincey, he is not just that and he never was. So thank you, Anon, for reminding me again why I love him so much. Perhaps one day, there will be an adaptation where he's actually appreciated.

As a side note, they made him a horrible person in 2020 Dracula?! Ugh, I started watching it and could not get through it after they killed Jonathan off -- I didn't care if they resurrected him or what, I was done. I just couldn't keep watching Now I don't want to do it even more if they ruined Quincey too!!!! BBC stop trying to be edgy with classic literature challenge (impossible). What are they going to do next? Make a Jane Eyre series where Jane's the wife in the attic the whole time? I shouldn't even write that cause they'll probably think "wow, that's a great idea!" :/

[transmutationisms]

do you have more dracula thoughts? i've read the book and honestly the chapters i enjoyed the best were jonathan harker's letters and then it went downhill.

i actually think the most interesting bits To Me have to do with lucy, her mother, and her vampirism [incest goggles on]

i've always seen lucy's choice of preying on children as a reenactment of her relationship with her mother, obviously with roles reversed. when lucy and her mother are both alive, there's a bodily blurring of identity between the two of them: sharing in each other's sicknesses, to the point where the other characters end up lying to each of them about the other's condition, for fear of transmitting / worsening the illness that way. i think what lucy does by preying on children, specifically, as a vampire is essentially create that same maternal relationship, with the blurring of bodies now rendered literal by the supernatural elements of the genre. lucy never progressed past the attachment to her mother by cementing an attachment to a husband; so, as a vampire, all she can do is recreate this dynamic with the children by killing them. we're meant to understand she wants a family, but that desire has been perverted by her transformation into a monster; however, i'd argue this goes beyond just wanting a child and has to do with her unresolved grief about being a child herself. vampiric feeding in the novel is sexual---more obviously with dracula and jonathan/lucy/mina, but nevertheless it's established as an act of both consumption and consummation. so, for lucy to act out motherhood in this specific way is both central to the horror that stoker is trying to convey (in this way, a pretty openly reactionary appeal to the sanctity of the family!) and i think tells us quite a bit about how these filial relationships actually function and what they entail.

the obvious connection here is the number of times dracula is described as having a "childlike" mind, and particularly how this childishness manifests as his desire to kill the men specifically so he can possess 'their' women (i don't have page numbers but he says this toward the end lol). what dracula wants is, on the surface and in the minds of the male characters, a type of possession quite different to a sanctioned legal heterosexual marriage. however, i'd suggest that for readers, just as lucy's vampirism is not a deviation from maternality but a supernatural intensification of it, so is dracula's desire to steal away and possess the female characters a vampiric version of nuclear coupling that doesn't introduce any new elements to the arrangement, only problematises its already existing ones. his "childishness" is therefore a combination of projection on the part of the human characters, and stoker's partially-baked engagement with certain orientalist ethnological discourses about individual psychology as a recapitulation of the progress or decline of a civilisation.

i also wrote a bit about the sci-fi elements and medicine of dracula but those are further down in this tag :-) i honestly wasn't blown away by the book (esp not by stoker's prose) but, it was entertaining and it's such a cultural touchpoint that i felt like it was an informative read regardless.

[vickyvicarious]

As he went down the wall, lizard fashion, I wished I had a gun or some lethal weapon, that I might destroy him; but I fear that no weapon wrought alone by man's hand would have any effect on him. I dared not wait to see him return, for I feared to see those weird sisters. I came back to the library, and read there till I fell asleep.

Jonathan's sheer rage is really notable here. I imagine at least a part of it is the sight of Dracula in his own clothes once again, after what happened last time. He also doesn't attempt to watch for Dracula's return at all, and while his stated reasoning is certainly a possible part of it, I wonder if he also simply doesn't want to have to bear witness again if Dracula returns with another victim. After all, despite the library being listed as a secondary safe place to sleep, Jonathan hasn't really done so before (except when he was locked in). But he knows it is a safe place, and while still nearby, it seems to be not right next to Dracula's room. If Dracula does bring back another child (which is by no means guaranteed) then even if he can't help, Jonathan at least won't have to listen as they are killed.

But with his rage and his desire to try and stop Dracula harming others, you might think he would want to be closer, right? Again, some of it is that self-preservation instinct. But his line about "no weapon wrought alone by man's hand" tells us he doesn't think he could, even if he had much more firepower than he actually does. Jonathan has had lots of experience with various strengths and abilities of vampires, but doesn't know their weaknesses. He's figured out that Dracula didn't like the crucifix, and 'sleeps' during the day, but that's about it. He may believe only some kind of holy weapon could even harm him (not wrought alone by man's hand). And he's not wrong about that, at least when a vampire is active. All the methods Van Helsing lists later are intended for use when a vampire is already weakened by the time of day/in a 'sleeping' state - even the stake, beheading, and 'sacred bullet' are all only listed as options to kill a vampire in their coffin. The most that seems doable while they are awake, at least that we ever see in the book, is to ward them off in one way or another. The crucifix and communion wafers aren't pleasant and the vampires avoid touching them but they don't seem to actually physically burn/scar in the same way they did Mina. Now, that may simply be because the vampires never touched any of those holy objects long enough, but regardless, Jonathan's instinct here isn't really wrong per say. Just not complete.

If he is convinced of this, then why attack Dracula in his dirt box tomorrow? Well, he's in the heat of rage and guilt at knowing what Dracula will unleash on many other people. It's the same as the other day, really. When Jonathan sees or hears someone else being hurt, he can't help but try to do something, even if he doesn't really believe it will get anywhere. In this entry, that isn't happening. And it's no guarantee that Dracula will bring back another victim; he's gone out multiple other times without seeming to have done so, after all. Not to mention the main reason: Jonathan says above that he would still try to kill Dracula if he had a weapon - he just is afraid it wouldn't work.

[bluecatwriter]

28. How they feel about [insert character]

Jack -> Jonathan, Mina, Lucy

each he hasn't known for ages like he does the others! hope this isn't lots!

Ooh, thank you! I love getting lots of asks— it's enrichment for my enclosure. ;)

Jonathan: Jack first meets Jonathan the way we do, through reading his words, and he is smitten. He rightly sees and appreciates how incredibly brave Jonathan was during his time at the castle, and Jack is ready to meet the true embodiment of Strong Young Manhood. He's surprised when Jonathan turns out to be a "quiet, businesslike gentleman," but is already using physiognomy to determine that Jonathan is "uncommonly clever, if one can judge from his face." He's surprised, but not disappointed, and his admiration steadily grows over the course of the canon events as Jonathan proves himself to be everything Jack wishes he could be: singlemindedly devoted to an unselfish cause, passionate, fighting for his true love. I like to think that Jack's hero-worship hits an almost unbearable peak during their week waiting in Varna— with Jack crushing on Jonathan and badly flirting all the time (with neither him nor Jonathan realizing that his weird behavior is crushing/flirting) to the point where Jonathan wants to strangle him. I don't think Jack ever loses his starry-eyed view of Jonathan, no matter how many years pass.

Mina: Ah, Mina! She is the first female friend Jack has ever had, and so his mind keeps wildly trying to categorize her into a box that fits. They are best friends; they are soulmates; they are siblings; they are spouses from another timeline— his mind keeps rattling between all these options, with none of them quite fitting the intensity of his feelings for her. They get along great and trust each other with their hearts right from the beginning, but Jack also has a lot of patriarchal attitudes ingrained in him, and so his natural leaning toward treating her as an equal keeps getting sidetracked by his idea that she must be "protected." He would gladly die for her, or kill for her. He also would kind of like to be her...

Lucy: Jack's relationship with Lucy is one of my favorite character arcs of the whole book! I like to think there was a certain spark between them when they met, but it mostly took the form of Lucy being intrigued by him and Jack being amazed that a young woman was paying any attention to him (rather than doing what others had done, which was awkwardly excuse themselves from the conversation when he started staring at them). He immediately jumped from, "We can have a conversation" to "She should be my wife," and decided to propose while he had the courage, since he knew that she wouldn't be free for long. Getting rejected was devastating, but not unexpected; to him at this point, Lucy is more of an idea than a person: a chance at the heterosexually-married life he thinks he's "supposed" to have. The longer he's away from her, the more abstract she becomes in his mind. But then, but then! Arthur calls for his help, and he has to decide whether or not he meant it to Lucy when he said he'd be a friend to her. And he did mean it, and for the first time, he is seeing Lucy as a person, not as a hope for his own future. He's definitely not perfect in the way he handles every situation, but he sacrifices a lot of his time, effort, emotion, expertise, and blood in order to help her. He checks in on her between his full-time job; he sits with her while she sleeps to keep her from nightmares; he helps bridge the gap between Arthur, who's torn between Lucy and his father; he keeps silent vigil when Lucy breaks down crying. I think in a very meaningful way, Lucy is the one who teaches Jack how to love. I think that in time, they could have been really good friends. :'(

Thanks for giving me the chance to ramble!

(Ask game here)

[anncanta]

***

@alma37

There is one more thing in the ending of ‘Dracula’, which probably seemed so obvious to me that I almost never said it. The point is that the final scene, the moment with sex, represents not only the expression of Dracula's feelings but – perhaps most of all – Agatha's own desire.

It's hard to explain. We saw those understandable coincidences (which are never coincidences, especially in Moffat's writing) in other episodes where Dracula drinks someone's blood. Just drinking blood is one thing, especially in order to satisfy physical hunger. Here we are not talking about hunger at all, and not about the process of drinking blood as such. We see two people between whom a very specific dialogue is going on. Very precisely and openly spoken one. A dialogue in which the words are so carefully chosen that no one is left in doubt about what we are witnessing.

Someone has already noted that of all Dracula's victims, only Agatha sees him in her dream, and more than openly in the finale. And we, I hope, will talk about this again. But it is important to remember that Dracula ‘gets’ out of his victims their secret thoughts and desires, something that they may not always admit to themselves.

Remember the conversation between Agatha and Jonathan? Jonathan is obviously ashamed of his dreams about Mina. This is clear from Agatha's words. If Jonathan had been ashamed to talk about these dreams, she would have said so, ‘There is no shame in sharing this with us. It is not only what you did in Dracula's castle that is important, but also everything you thought about and what you felt, right down to your fantasies and dreams.’ She literally says this when they return to her question about whether he had sexual intercourse with the Count. And then she suddenly drops her usual pragmatic tone and begins to talk about dreams as heaven in which we can sin without fear of being punished.

I think this is the same pragmatism, only in relation to something else – ‘stop being ashamed of your dreams and tell me about them.’ Agatha sees perfectly well who Jonathan is, and she understands perfectly well that if he decides that talking about something is wrong or ‘undignified’, he will never tell – even if she threatens to cut him into pieces. Therefore, she, like a smart investigator, uses reasonable tactics that will help her counterpart talk.

Jonathan's dream and its meaning are clear to Agatha precisely because she is looking from the outside. She doesn't notice her own infatuation with the Count – until she stumbles upon Mina's shocked look in response to the words that ‘Dracula is the best among vampires,’ and immediately corrects herself – ‘the most successful one.’ She can see a situation, though: Dracula gives the victim what he wants. And Moffat and Gatiss want us to remember this. Then this will be repeated several times, but not as clearly as with Jonathan.

In this context, by the way, Zoe's reaction is interesting. Dracula, just like with Agatha, is quite frank with her and, unlike other victims, drags Zoe ‘to his home.’ But there she reacts like everyone else – immediately manifesting her desires. ‘You are killing me?’ And, just like with the others, Dracula gives her what she wants, ‘It doesn't have to hurt.’

But let's return to Agatha. From what we've seen, it's clear that the ending is a gift for her because that's what she wanted. Whether she realized it or not, whether she thought it was normal or unacceptable, she wanted to make love to him. And he wanted it too.

That's why the ending is so harmonious. And so even those who don't like it conceptually often can't stop rewatching this part.

Such is the power of art.

[scoobydoodean]

Thinking about 4.05 "Monster Movie" and how the shifter (Lucy) who dresses up as Dracula fixates on Jamie and Dean, casting Jamie as Mina and Dean as Jonathan Harker—Mina's fiance—the righteous hero who, with Van Helsing, saves Mina from Dracula.

The last time we really focused on the POV of a shifter was 1.06, where our shifter was a Dean parallel. This time I think our shifter represents Sam—or rather, the shifter represents Sam’s feelings about his own monsterhood, and the occasional envy he feels toward Dean—Dean who is cast by the envious shifter as righteous hero who "gets the girl" (but not this time, Harker!) In season 4, Dean will be given the title “The righteous man”. The same angels calling him that will call Sam “The boy with the demon blood” and “abomination”.

Opening on the scene where Dean has been dressed in lederhosen and tied up by the shifter:

DEAN looks at a portrait of a woman’s face on the wall which resembles LUCY. DRACULA She is beautiful, no? Bride number three from the first film. She never got the acclaim that she deserved. Which is why I chose her shape, her form, to move among the mortals unnoticed. To listen to the cricket songs of the living. That is when I discovered my bride had been reborn in this century.

The shifter wanted to fit in—to be perceived as normal—so they chose Lucy’s shape. It isn't difficult to connect that desire for normality with Sam's initial desire for normality. But the shifter discovered Mina (Jamie) and then everything changed.

In “Monster Movie”, the shifter initially despaired of their monsterhood, but monster movies gave the shifter a sense of dignity—a taste of power.

DRACULA "Real" is being born this way. Different. "Real" is having your dad call you "monster" -- it's the first time you hear the word. And he tries to beat you to death with a shovel. Everywhere I ran, everywhere I tried to hide, people found me, dragged me out, attacked me. Called me "freak," called me "monster." Then I found them. The great monsters. In their movies, they were strong. They were feared. They were beautiful. And now I am like them. Commanding. Terrifying.

I'm immediately reminded of a speech Sam gives in the previous episode, explaining why he's decided to embrace demonic power (4.04):

SAM I've got demon blood in me, Dean! This disease pumping through my veins, and I can't ever rip it out or scrub it clean! I'm a whole new level of freak! And I'm just trying to take this - this curse... and make something good out of it. Because I have to.

In Dracula, Mina was saved from Dracula at the end of the story by Harker and Van Helsing. Lucy wasn't able to be saved—she was a victim of Dracula’s, who started out a kind, soft hearted woman, but was killed by Dracula and reborn as a monster who fed on children. She was subsequently destroyed by Van Helsing.

In our parallel, I don't think Mina (played by Jamie) parallels a person so much as Mina represents an ideal or desire. Mina represents "getting to be the hero"—Mina represents the capacity for redemption.

What the shifter (and Sam) don't know is that redemption is something Dean is also seeking:

JAMIE That must suck. I mean, you're giving up your life for this terrible... I don't know, responsibility. DEAN Last few years, I started thinking that way, and, uh, it started sort of weighing on me. Of course, that was before... A little while ago, I had this – let’s call it a near-death experience. Very near. JAMIE sits down next to DEAN. DEAN And, uh, when I came to... things were different. My life's been different. I realize that I help people. Not just help them, though. I save them. I guess it's -- it's awesome. It's kind of like a gift... like a mission. Kind of like a... a mission from God.

Dean is on a mission from God—and we as forward-looking viewers who know Dean tortured souls in hell have a better understanding of why Dean ties himself to that mission—as a form of redemption.

Monsters on the other hand... monsters don't get the girl—monsters don't get redemption—monsters don't save the day. Harker and Van Helsing save the day, and Harker (Dean) gets the girl.

DEAN You do realize what happens at the end of every monster movie? DRACULA Ah, but this movie is mine. And in it, the monster wins. The monster gets the girl. And the hero, he’s... electrocuted. And tonight, Jonathan Harker, you will be my hero.

This is, in some sense, our Sam from 4.04 manifesting a win—manifesting becoming the hero through monstrosity. Dean doesn't get to be the hero this time.

SAM Dean, I need her to help me kill Lilith. I know you can't wrap your head around it, but maybe one day you'll understand. I'm the only one who can do this, Dean. DEAN turns back around. DEAN No, you're not the one who's gonna do this. SAM Right, that's right, I forgot. The angels think it's you. DEAN You don't think I can? SAM No. You can't. You're not strong enough. DEAN And who the hell are you? SAM I'm being practical here. I'm doing what needs to be done.

Sam wants Dean to take a back seat. In a sea of motivations for lying and working with Ruby, one of them—most certainly—is that Sam wants to be the hero and wants Dean to not be the hero... and in some sense, this also fits with shifter who tries to force Dean into a role—who insists Dean play the role of Harker... who, while one of the story's heroes, also plays the part of the damsel in distress at various points in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Crucially though, Sam isn't just represented by Lucy and the shifter in "Monster Movie". Sam is also associated with Van Helsing—or rather—when Sam arrives to free Dean and Jamie, the shifter shouts,

DRACULA You will never be Van Helsing!

This is Sam's despair in the mouth of the shifter. Sam could never be a traditional hero. He's unclean—he could never be a hero like the badass Van Helsing—the closest thing the Dracula novel has to a hunter (knowledgeable, strong, tenacious, clever). Sam could never go on a quest like that.

SAM Knights of the Round Table. Had all of King Arthur's knights, and they were all on the quest for the Holy Grail. And I remember looking at this picture of Sir Galahad, and, and, and he was kneeling, and— and light streaming over his face, and— I remember... thinking, uh, I could never go on a quest like that. Because I'm not clean. I mean, I w— I was just a little kid. You think... maybe I knew? I mean, deep down, that— I had... demon blood in me, and about the evil of it, and that I'm— wasn't pure?

The thing is, Sam is paralleled with the shifter as Lucy (desperation for normality) and as Dracula (despair, reclaiming monstrosity as his own), but Van Helsing is also a part of Sam too. Van Helsing represents Sam's ability to choose his destiny—Sam's ability to choose to be a hero, despite how he's despaired of ever being clean. He just has to realize it's his choice—that life is not a maze he has no choice but to run through. He is not unclean. His destiny is not defined by Azazel's blood.

JAMIE Ever think that maybe you're lonely because you kill people? DRACULA Or I kill people because I’m lonely.

Sam continues through season 4 with this same frame of mind in a sense—not in the sense that he's killing people (though... at one point, he will) but in the sense that his actions are someone else's fault and are out of his control. And yet, the capacity to be Van Helsing and not the monster who despairs remains.

[dross-the-fish]

I get what you're saying but Dracula attacked Mina to hurt Jonathan, it's Jonathan he was after.

I know Jon is a fan favorite but please, I am begging at this point, care about the other characters. For pete's sake. Every post I make about Dracula these days results in somebody coming at me and going "WHAT ABOUT JONATHAN?!" and it's starting to get old. I want to talk about my AU, and my thoughts on literature and these characters are part of that but some of you guys make it a real chore because you can't put down your blorbo for five seconds. Also no, I don't think Dracula biting Mina was exclusively about Jonathan and I certainly don't write it that way myself. Dracula bit Mina because the group was plotting against him. They were coming after him for what happened with Lucy. He was also drawn to Mina individually, similar to how he targeted Lucy, because targeting women is what he does. It wasn't just about Jonathan, he had beef with ALL of them by that point.

Also I really dislike making Mina's suffering about Jonathan. Even if it could be argued that Jonathan was the reason Mina is still the one who got bitten. Y'all have got to stop making Mina's trauma about Jonathan and actually let it be hers. There's a trope called "women in refrigerators" that describes a phenomenon where female characters are brutalized or killed to create drama for the male characters and the way some people in this fandom engage with Mina feels like they're embracing that unironically. Even if Mina being attacked was ostensibly about Jonathan it shouldn't be and anyone who frames it as such should be criticized for doing so.

[yallemagne]

Note that Dracula does not actively retaliate against Jonathan. He retaliates against the letter, for sure, but he does not punish Jonathan exactly as one would expect. He keeps the act up. Which is possibly an even worse punishment.

Jonathan already knows about the Romani, which is interesting. Of course, functionally, Bram is giving us world-building and using Jonathan as a vehicle for that, but the description of the Romani is not one that would lend to too much confidence that they would help Jonathan, as they are clearly aligned, however knowingly, with the Count.

Who must have told Jonathan about them? Possibly one of his previous hosts, but I opt to say it was the Count.

Imagine that: Jonathan inquires about the only staff he has seen so far in Dracula's lands, and Dracula's answer is to squash Jonathan's hope by saying those "lawless" men answer only to himself. However, Jonathan still tries, he can't let himself give into his despair and give up without trying such an obvious means of escape. He knows that, in all likelihood, Dracula could be lying when he says these people are unlike the locals that helped Jonathan in the past. Though, Jonathan still takes precautions to make sure the full extent of what he knows isn't revealed if this is a dead end.

Unfortunately, the Romani are aligned against Jonathan, but possibly not with ill intentions. In all likelihood, they don't know Dracula's nature, or, if they do, they have to ignore it out of desperation, because no one else would ever employ them. It is serve Dracula or starve. They parallel Jonathan, in a way. They see a frantic man trying to appeal to them in a foreign language, and all they can do is accept what they believe he might be saying and continue on with their work.

There's also the possibility that it is more of Dracula's duplicity. Who is to say the man that took Jonathan's letters and payment did not parse Jonathan's meaning? Perhaps he did but was killed on his way to deliver them to a post office. And Dracula reframes it as the men being completely loyal to him. The belief, then, is not that sending more shorthand letters through them is dangerous because the Count will intercept them himself, but that the Romani will deliver them to the Count whether out of ignorance or malice. The latter is quite hopeless. It means that Jonathan cannot get by on the grace of others-- that the only humans he has seen in so long are either unknowing or uncaring of the danger he is in.

Dracula burns the letter but allows the inconspicuous one to be sent. He's mocking Jonathan for his attempt, letting his message be sent but not the one that matters.

"The letter to Hawkins—that I shall, of course, send on, since it is yours. Your letters are sacred to me. Your pardon, my friend, that unknowingly I did break the seal. Will you not cover it again?" He held out the letter to me, and with a courteous bow handed me a clean envelope. I could only redirect it and hand it to him in silence. 

He, once again, reframes the situation. Oh, if Jonathan had simply written all he wanted to say clearly in that letter to Mina, there would have been no issue with it, since Jonathan's letters are sacred. Never mind the desecration of Dracula opening the letter to Hawkins. He then forces Jonathan to participate in the mockery by having him reseal the envelope.

When he went out of the room I could hear the key turn softly. A minute later I went over and tried it, and the door was locked.

Remember Dracula's warning from before?

"Be warned! Should sleep now or ever overcome you, or be like to do, then haste to your own chamber or to these rooms, for your rest will then be safe. But if you be not careful in this respect, then"—He finished his speech in a gruesome way, for he motioned with his hands as if he were washing them. [May 12]

Locking Jonathan in the study now is a passive threat that, if Jonathan does not stay in line, Dracula will relinquish his protection over him. Though the study is presumably one of the safe rooms, there is only guaranteed safety if Dracula provides it.

When, an hour or two after, the Count came quietly into the room, his coming awakened me, for I had gone to sleep on the sofa. He was very courteous and very cheery in his manner, and seeing that I had been sleeping, he said:— "So, my friend, you are tired? Get to bed. There is the surest rest. I may not have the pleasure to talk to-night, since there are many labours to me; but you will sleep, I pray."

Dracula locks Jonathan in the study so he has no choice but to fall asleep there and not in his room. Jonathan is only able to go back to his room once Dracula comes in to retrieve him. Before, Dracula placed the guarantee of Jonathan's safety in his own hands. "If you do this, if you don't do this..." But now he's taking it back. "If I decide you must die sooner than promised, you shall."

I passed to my room and went to bed, and, strange to say, slept without dreaming. Despair has its own calms.

Sleep is only a short reprieve from Jonathan's waking nightmare. He can't rely on the help of his fellow humans, Dracula can and will take back his hospitality on a whim-- Jonathan has nothing to hope for except a night of dreamless sleep.

... I reframe the latter half of May 28 in my fic Orice-- *gets shot*

[beevean]

hecula and harkula for the ship ask game please? 👀(movies/books/series/games whatev, your choice)

:)

Book Harkula and game Hecula get the same placement:

because I may be predictable, but I am also coherent 👍

(the reason I didn't go full 100% on "makes sense" is that I leave that tiny room for ships that are peak wholesome romance. obviously. obviously these two ships are less than wholesome.)

Anyway, creepy gross old bastard playing sick mental games with his favorite pretty boy stuck in his castle goes brrrrrrrr <3

I don't know how things go in Dracula 2020 (Jonathan becomes undead I think?), but in the book the Jonathan section is a marvel of realistic horror, of genuinely scary subtle abuse where you can see how finely Dracula is working Jonathan, destroying his sense of reality and making him feel all sorts of small and vulnerable and dependent on him. While I love how Jonathan manages to run away and the way he struggles with his trauma (honestly written better than in many modern works), at first being in deep denial for the shock but then getting ready to kill God if He stands in the way of him and shanking that monster, I'm also interested in AUs where Dracula manages to turn his new crush in a twisted, unholy marriage :) doing everything in his power to replace Mina in his heart :) corrupting this fine young upstanding man :) or does he :)

And well. I don't know what else I can say about Hecula. It's just. the narrative of the golden child who feels so loved and accepted only to realize that he's losing his sense of self, his dignity, his humanity for a cruel mentor and so decides to run away :) but the lingering effects of his servitude are always there, always affecting him and his life :) and Dracula didn't turn Hector and Isaac into vampires but he did infuse them with part of himself :) and Hector thinking about Dracula as he's dying and when he's renouncing his powers :) and the hints that Dracula did in his own way care about Hector ("the more precious things are...") :) and the narrative parallels of Hector almost falling as low as Dracula :) it's So Clear to me.

And just because I feel petty :P N!Hecula:

And this is my best explanation:

(we call N!Hector "Caesar" and N!Isaac "Abraham" as an inside joke :P)

nah jokes aside, I can tell N!Hector respects and cares about N!Dracula, going so far as to be concerned about his wellbeing regarding Lisa's death. And as much as his plan to revive him is a spit in the face of decent character development, I can at least snicker that ohhh look at him, wanting his master back, that's true love <3 game Isaac would be proud <3

But since N!Dracula is so mean to him and treats him like deadweight and clearly is in a relationship with N!Isaac, it's not as interesting. When I want to indulge in simp who'd die for his lord/lord who only sees his simp as a toy, Isaacula is right there :V

[see-arcane]

(Needless song dissection incoming)

Okay, I know the lyrics match up tonally with Jonathan's stay in Transylvanian Vampire Hell, hence 'so far from home~,' but it's starting to click home to me as something Dracula must have had on his brain as of/just after October 3rd.

The most obvious reason is that, like the rest of the @re-dracula tunes, it would only make sense to have "Inside You" happening within chronological order of events. Why backpedal all the way to the opening for a time-misplaced tune?

But the subtler reason it's most likely placed right around October 3rd's events? Potentially right after Dracula got a look at white-haired, hollow burning-eyed Jonathan in Piccadilly (and got duly mugged at kukri point)? The style of the song. It's a jaunty, whirling, waltzing, stage-ready melody.

The kind of song Dracula would likely never have heard and summarily gotten stuck in his head until he was in England and in reach of a stage. You don't need an invitation to a theatre! Everyone is welcome with a ticket! So he mills inside the same way he idled his way into wolf-browsing at the zoo, and takes in a show. And the music hooks his ear.

Cue today's spectacle, replete with making the one move guaranteed to enrage and devastate his runaway solicitor--so far from (his) home--and lay the groundwork for the young man ultimately crawling back into his thrall. Holiest love and all.

Jonathan won't stay put to be turned and take his place with the Brides like a good new addition? Jonathan wants to join his nuisance busy-brained beloved in mucking up Dracula's plans for England? Jonathan, the man who belongs belonged to him, wants to defy him, strike at him with more than a spade?

Fine.

Mina is damned by force. It is a heinous assault, but the job is done in minutes, the horror left to stain things in the bastard's absence.

But Jonathan? As the tune gleefully, insidiously implies, Dracula wants to shoulder him back through the gamut of their past roles, to take the time to make him plead for mercy that won't come (for him or her), wringing out the old doomed song and dance from his former captive until all the light he saw in his eyes--hollow-burning, strong, vicious, meaning to make the hunter the hunted--go out before Jonathan is dragged, beaten and broken at last, into the state he barely escaped in the castle.

And, like all the knife-twisting acts of that hellish summer stay, Jonathan will have to do it by choice.

Facing the wolves or waiting out the night.

Kill her or join her, my sweet friend. Don't look so sour, Jonathan. No one is forcing you to do this. Ha ha.

Even in his own sourest moods to come--and the bloodsucking fucker will have PLENTY to be sour about in future entries, get wrecked you undead prick--I imagine humming the little tune to himself will be some balm.

Ugh.

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

Saw the annotated book about the suitors being actually rivals who compete with each other screenshot here. Also that Mina finds that Jonathan is weak because he falls into a stupor and that she attaches herself onto them because they are the masculinity that he lacks to give her.

A journal article argued the same thing, and that their sexual urges get resolved by staking Bloofer Lady they want to kill each other like male deer over, so they go to a homosocial truce when they kill her together.

I have definitely seen bits and pieces of some of those takes before.

And I mean this sincerely: What fucking book are these people reading? None of that is even subtextual. You have to reach so far to actually see that.

And the thing is that I do think there are many interpretations you can make of any given text. But those don't seem to have a scrap of textual support.

Though, I should - perhaps- not be so surprised that people read toxic masculinity into a book that refreshingly doesn't have that much of it in the actual text.