#Mina Murray | Dracula Protagonist

[elisavi]

dracula is my most recent source of serotonin so here's part of the gang + renfield

[immediatebreakfast]

"I want you to hypnotise me!" she said. "Do it before the dawn, for I feel that then I can speak, and speak freely. Be quick, for the time is short!"

This is (for me) the perfect counter attack ever done to the Count in this whole novel. It's such a masterful move against him that which leaves no room for him ever escaping in an actual way that matters expect waiting for the gang to naturally die of old age.

Mina literally reserved the Count's hypnosis into his own brain! The same hypnosis he used with the Weird Sisters, with Lucy, with the wolves, with Bersicker, it only took Mina a day to understand not only how it worked, but also how to block it then reverse it so she can know where the Count is headed is the kind of proactive move that Mina would do.

Remember that this is after the horrific trauma that Mina went through yesterday. She is still shocked, and in low energy for the most part, but that doesn't stop Mina from getting closer to her personal revenge against the Count while using any means she can find. Whenever it's her trusted typewriter, or her own mind in a void state, Mina is a resourceful woman established to always find a active solution to any problem that she finds.

[deyaviews]

Here’s my pitch:

Dracula comes back and goes after Van Helsing’s great-great-grandchild, who is A.) trans, and B.) completely oblivious about that family history. Ends up getting rescued by Wilhelmina “Mina” Murray Harker III, who drags them into a modern urban fantasy adventure.

(Harker can either be the wise eccentric older mentor type or similar in age but kinda jaded already and develop a budding romantic relationship with Van Helsing.)

((Or include two Harkers, one the mentor, the other a self-styled rival-to-lover. Self-styled because the Van Helsing has no intention/idea of being rivals.))

hey why are the Van Helsings always the Vampire Hunting Family in modern Dracula stories. Abraham Van Helsing might be the guy who knows stuff but his family is off in the Netherlands and/or dead and totally uninvolved in the plot. Abraham's great-great grandson has no reason to be doing backflips and chopping off heads or whatever

You know who is a family who hates Dracula so so much and would totally teach their kids how to hunt vampires? The Harkers. Give me a modern vampire story where the protagonists are about to die when out pops Quincey Arthur John Lucy Abraham Murray Harker the Fifth, armed with a giant knife and an encyclopedic knowledge of train schedules

[see-arcane]

Friends. Fiends. Fellow Dracula Dailiers and assorted undead.

I have some hypotheticals for you:

(Explanatory ramble below the cut)

Short version: I would love to have some real Dracula merch.

Long version: I cannot stand the fact that there is no real Dracula merch*. The Vampyres is obviously all on me as far as getting things made, being my own skinny little indie book. But it’s genuinely driving me nuts that the only Dracula stuff around is from Universal, Coppola’s fanfiction, or Castlevania, and none of it features the actual protagonists of Dracula. There’s nothing for the book! Nothing for Jonathan, period, and Mina’s stuck trading spit with Gary Oldman on Hot Topic t-shirts. Hell, Dracula himself isn’t even Dracula! He’s always Count Suaveman Sexypire instead of the bat bastard I know and loathe. It’s miserable. So, I want to give this a try.

I’ve submitted a request to Makeship to see if they’ll collaborate with me for a campaign. It turns out it’s a bit of a ‘cool kids only’ deal, so there’s every chance they’ll pass on it, (Tumblr wasn’t even an option on the What Social Media Do You Hail From, Content Creator? bit of their questionnaire, so that’s telling.) But they’re supposed to get back to me with a Yes or No in ten business days, so we’ll see what happens. If they pick up my project, that would allow the plushie of choice to be crowdfunded without a major monetary blow to anyone and a guarantee of a good quality product. If it doesn’t reach its goal within the campaign period, everyone gets their money back.

If Makeship doesn’t work out, I’ll go sniffing around for other options. Maybe see if there are any good stationery makers to check out too. Feel free to send recommendations my way!

So yeah. That’s about it.

I just want to fill the void where a cuddleable little Harker and a strangleable little Dracula should be is that so much to ask?

*Not counting the cool stuff @re-dracula has in their shop. Thank you for the coziest coolest foul bauble of a t-shirt.   

[hobo-rg]

Randomly thinking about that "vampires are uniquely vulnerable to the symbols and rituals of Roman Catholicism, no matter what the vampire's religion or their opponents' religions are" cliche that we all loathe, and it occurs to me that this cliche comes from the original Dracula novel but (as is so often the case with the origins of cliches) the way Dracula uses Roman Catholicism is not the cliche. (spoilers under the readmore)

In Dracula, Catholicism, and Christianity more generally, are not placed in opposition to any other real-world religion. Instead, folk-Christian faith (the Transylvanian peasants and sailors) and unauthorized off-label application of Roman Catholic ritual (Van Helsing) are presented as the only readily available alternative to casual disbelief in the supernatural.

Except for Van Helsing, the protagonists — Jonathan Harker, Mina Murray, Lucy Westenra, Lucy's family, Lucy's suitors — are all sensible late-Victorian educated gentlemen, ladies, and cowboys who think there's no such thing as a vampire. When Harker accepts a crucifix from that Transylvanian woman whose name we never get, he thinks he's humoring her; he doesn't think it has any power to protect him, and he doesn't think there's anything he needs supernatural protection from. Later on, when Lucy is suffering from anaemia of unknown cause, John Seward sends for Van Helsing because he's an expert on obscure diseases, not because he's an expert on vampires or religion.

Van Helsing does believe vampires exist, or at least he takes the possibility seriously. He fights Dracula using Roman Catholic ritual and symbols, among other things; the garlic, for instance, is from Eastern European folk traditions. But he's not a Catholic priest (he's married, so he can't be) and he's not following actual Catholic procedure for exorcism or anything; in fact, several of the things he does (e.g. with the communion wafers) would be considered blasphemous. He's just using Catholicism as one of several sources of counter-vampire procedures that he thinks have a chance of working. It happens that the Catholic-derived procedures do work, but we are given no reason to think that they are the only counter-vampire procedures that will work. Indeed, the fact that the garlic also works is evidence to the contrary! And the protagonists' eventual victory over Dracula is presented as the result of luck, personal courage, and strength of arms, not faith.

[luxheroica]

It truly does tickle me how Percy de Rolo synthesizes all of the protagonists of Dracula. The nobility of Arthur, the scientific acumen of Seward and Van Helsing, the calculating planning of Mina Murray, the white haired traumatized protagonist energy of Jonathan Harker... And the guns of Quincey Morris.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 10 Portrayals of Jonathan Harker

On my previous list, I mentioned that while Abraham Van Helsing is the self-appointed leader of the protagonists in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, he’s actually not the main protagonist of the novel. I argued that Mina is the main character, and while I do still stand by that feeling, there is at least one other hero in the story who could qualify: Mina’s fiance (and later husband), Jonathan Harker.

Many people claim that Jonathan is a weak character, compared to Mina and Van Helsing. In fact, in a lot of adaptations, Jonathan’s role is significantly lessened, as he is considered less “important” than they are by many filmmakers and other creators. I don’t think this is entirely fair. If anything, alongside Mina, I would say Jonathan is the character who changes the most throughout the story: at the start of the book, Jonathan is a naive, perhaps overly-proper English gentleman; a young man who doesn’t understand the outside world he’s venturing into, and underestimates the danger he puts himself in. By the end of the novel, however, he’s one of the two characters directly responsible for Dracula’s death: Quincey Morris (who will NOT be getting a list, due to a lack of interpretations) strikes the first blow. Jonathan Harker then slashes the Count’s throat to make sure the vampire stays (double) dead. He goes from a weak, cowardly, overly passive figure to one of the most aggressive fighters in the story, as his experiences essentially help him to grow up. It’s worth pointing out that Jonathan is arguably also where the story of Dracula first started: according to urban legend (how true it is can be debated), Stoker first conceived of the concept for his novel in a nightmare, where he imagined himself surrounded by a trio of vampire women. Just as they were about to bite him, a powerful, masculine figure - another vampire - entered and stopped them. This, of course, was translated in the novel to Harker’s encounter with the Brides of Dracula. Jonathan can therefore be seen as a sort of possible writer’s surrogate in the story (perhaps alongside Van Helsing, since both he and Stoker share the same first name; “Bram” being short for “Abraham”). Whatever the origins of Harker, interpretations of his character - just like with Mina - tend to be hit or miss. He’s very seldom treated as the main protagonist in adaptations of the book, but he’s always present to some degree or another. With that in mind, here are My Top 10 Portrayals of Jonathan Harker!

10. George Colouris, from the Mercury Theater Radio Version.

I feel that Colouris is a bit older than I typically imagine Jonathan to be (at the time of the radio broadcast, he was almost 40), but his work in the radio production is still commendable. The medium allows Harker’s diary entries to take center-stage, as he serves as a sort of off-and-on narrator throughout the production.

9. John Van Eyssen, from the Hammer Horror Films.

As I said earlier, many versions of Harker lessen his role in some form or another: either excising his adventures in Castle Dracula, or else going the opposite direction and killing him off relatively early in the story. This version is a case of the latter: Jonathan only appears for the opening scenes of the first Hammer film, as he’s transformed into a vampire before the end of the first third, and then destroyed (offscreen, in this case) by Van Helsing. This version changes things up, however, as it’s revealed Harker isn’t all he seems, himself: instead of a simple property agent selling land to the Count, he’s Van Helsing’s apprentice, who goes to Castle Dracula to try and destroy Dracula (presumably under Van Helsing’s orders). Also, in this version he’s engaged to Lucy instead of Mina…weird.

8. Murray Brown, from the 1973 Film.

This film - made by Dan Curtis of “Dark Shadows” fame - is another example of Harker's role being largely reduced to his Transylvania scenes. Brown plays a somewhat more firm and willful Harker, whose strength still proves to be no match for the Count. He is ultimately turned into a vampire himself. Towards the end of the film, Van Helsing and Arthur Holmwood encounter Harker - now a starved, practical feral beast - and are forced to slay him. Poor fellow.

7. Trevor Eve, from the 1979 Film.

Unlike the previous two versions, this one excises Jonathan’s time at the Castle: this adaptation never actually leaves England, as it starts when Dracula arrives in Whitby Harbor from Transylvania. Normally I feel this is a problem, since it means much of the most interesting moments for Harker as a character are completely lost, but this film manages to find a compromise: a lot of the stuff typically reserved for the famous fortress is reserved for the equally decadent Carfax Abbey. As a result, we still get Jonathan visiting the Count, alone, in his dark and gloomy lair, but it plays out rather differently overall. I also have to commend the film in that it toys with a romantic daliance between the Mina character and Dracula, but doesn’t do so in a way that makes Harker’s own character look like an incompetent or boring boob in the process. (I’m looking at you, Francis Ford Coppola.)

6. Mickey Mouse, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.

As I’ve said on previous lists, Disney has done this concept twice: first with a graphic novel, and second with a much slighter children’s storybook. In both cases, Mickey plays Jonathan, and…well…it’s MICKEY-FREAKING-MOUSE. Honestly, I don’t think I need to say more about why he ranks so highly; this is both absolutely bloody hilarious and yet so bizarrely fitting, as far as casting goes. XD

5. Gustav von Wangenheim, from Nosferatu.

In this silent classic, as many are doubtless aware, all of the major characters had their names changed in an attempt to dodge copyright issues, since Dracula was still an owned property at the time. (Spoiler Alert: it didn’t work…but that’s another story.) In the film, the Harker character is named “Thomas Hutter.” In this version, instead of being emboldened by his misadventures in Transylvania, Jonathan essentially goes through a different story arc altogether: he still starts off as a naive and rather foolhardy youth - impulsive and gullible - but once he returns home, instead of growing stronger, he remains in a sort of state of terror, too frightened to act as he simply tries to hold on to the comforts of home and move on from his experiences. He tries to deny the reality of the vampire's presence in his hometown. As a result, it’s his beloved Ellen (the Mina character) who ultimately pays the price, as she is the one who eventually makes the ultimate sacrifice to destroy Dracula, leaving her husband to grieve and fret alone. Pretty tragic, actually.

4. Bruno Ganz, from Nosferatu the Vampyre.

In the first remake of Nosferatu (there have been at least two since), Ganz’s Harker strays from both the novel AND the original film in his story arc, but his own tale is equally tragic when compared to the previous one. In the film, just like in the earlier Hammer and Dan Curtis productions, Jonathan is bitten by Dracula before his escape from the Castle. HOWEVER, instead of being turned into a vampire then and there, and being destroyed later on, Harker’s transformation is much more gradual: he goes home a broken, traumatized man…and it’s not till the end of the film he officially becomes a vampire, and manages to escape. As a result, the film has an even bleaker ending than the silent version: the Mina character dies, Dracula (a more sympathetic villain in this version) dies, Van Helsing is wrongfully imprisoned by the misunderstanding authorities…and Jonathan, now a bloodthirsty monster who needs to feed, escapes to do madness only knows what. Yeesh, and people thought the original book was gloomy…

3. Fred Williams, from the 1970 Film.

This Jess-Franco-directed, hyper-low-budget movie (starring Christopher Lee in a rare non-Hammer outing as the Count) attempted to present a more faithful version of the novel than any that came before it. It still takes several liberties (every version does), but to its credit, it does still retain a commendable amount of source material. In the film - entitled “Count Dracula” - Williams is dubbed by an uncredited actor; I don’t know who they were, but they deserve some kudos too. This interpretation of Harker was actually an inspiration to me when writing my own adaptation of Dracula, recently; that should say plenty about the esteem in which I hold him.

2. Tom Hiddleston, from the 2006 BBC Radio Version.

Yep! Loki himself has played Jonathan Harker; he actually got top billing in this radio version, which featured David Suchet as the Count. (Also, the image above is actually from Crimson Peak, because...well...radio.) There’s really not much to say here; Hiddleston’s Harker, even if only via audio, is a MAGNIFICENT interpretation, mostly due to the power of the actor behind it. I would genuinely still like to see him in the role, even though he is a bit on the older side, if they ever do a movie…or better yet, make him Dracula, himself! Either way works for me!

1. Bosco Hogan, from the 1977 BBC TV Film.

Once again, the 1977 TV production here - which is quite possibly the single most accurate to the book of any onscreen - takes top billing for the Harker family. Just as it gives us the single best Mina ever onscreen, I would argue it gives us the best Harker. Hogan’s Jonathan has the perfect arc, matching that of the book, with a bit of humor thrown in here and there, and the relationship he has with his young bride-to-be is honestly really well handled. There is no doubt the Harkers are the main characters in this rendition, and they are excellent protagonists to follow.

[strangestcase]

Maybe I’m being uncharitable but how come all the Dracula Daily meta is JONATHAN IS SUCH A COOL GUY HE LOVES HIS WIFE AND HES SO STRONG AND HE LOVES HIS WIFE AND HES SO BRAVE AND SO AMAZING AND HE REALLY FUCKING LOVES HIS WIFE. DID I MENTION HE LOVES HIS WIFE. Yeah okay. And about that wife of his. Do you think of her at all. Do you acknowledge her as anything other than one half of a “power couple”. Like. You know Mina Murray is a human being with a personality and an independent will, right? You claim to love her and yet… Where are the lengthy analysis posts calling her so strong and so brave and so smart and so brilliant… where are the lengthy analysis posts pointing out how adaptations flatten her to nothing… about the injustice of popular culture reading her rape as romance… where is the fanart of her going batshit insane with a weapon… the RESPECT for her request to be killed because she’d rather be dead alone than undead with Jonathan. The APPRECIATION for her personality. Mentions of her as something more than the sexy lamp a blown up caricature of Jonathan can slobber for, a loving tumor on his muscular side, an adoring aside in his distortion from a brave average Joe into Pop Culture Van Helsing 2 But More Macho. Like… guys…… how come the tags are clogged with idiots claiming Jonathan is the Most Violent And Unhinged Member Of The Cast, which is patently false, yet the ACTUAL protagonist only gets the occasional “uuugh she loves trains and her husband”. Do you REALLY like Mina?

[tyrantisterror]

What does Nosferatu do that sets it above Lugosi's Dracula, in your opinion?

Outside of Lugosi and Dwight Fry, I think all the actors in the 1931 Dracula are pretty wooden - the lady playing Mina Murray is particularly bad. It's also one of the earliest adaptations to completely gut Mina's character and leave her as a one-dimensional damsel in distress, removing all the agency that makes her so compelling in the novel.

Nosferatu, by contrast, lets its Mina equivalent (confusingly named Lucy) actually be the one to kill Dracula in the end, which I think is an awesome change to make in that it gives her MORE agency and highlights the cunning and resilience that makes Mina Murray a great protagonist. Also the German Expressionist visuals are killer and make for a very distinct gothic horror vibe to the whole film.

[finalgirlminamurray]

not every horror villain is a slasher and not every horror protagonist is a final girl/guy. this is something that i feel i should reiterate even if i do occasionally use those terms as catch-all tags for posts that are about a bunch of different characters at once. it doesn't really bother me that much when people use those terms as such but if they are trying to do serious analysis it can be misleading

my url might make this a hypocritical belief of mine since dracula is decidedly not a slasher, and mina is not the only character to survive to the end, but if i were pressed for explanation i could absolutely write an essay on how she does kind of fulfill the role and how the treatment of her and lucy as the only two prominent female characters in the novel often parallels the treatment of female characters in slasher movies, not even by the movies themselves but by analysis and criticism of them; how if there are two women in the main cast they will inevitably be forced into a virgin/whore dichotomy regardless of how the story itself portrays them.

some people feel that the archetype of the final girl has been overly mythologized, or deified even. carol clover herself has said in her own essay coining the term that it shouldn't be regarded as an inherently feminist trope. there are all sorts of sexist tropes that the archetype was born from. but there's also been some backlash to the trope itself existing because of this, and i don't think it's totally warranted. given how much has been written about the trope over the years at this point, i'm almost more interested in how people talk about the archetype than the archetype itself. herself. you know.

so mina murray is not a final girl, not just because that term was a very long way from being conceptualized at all when her story was written but because that's not the kind of story she's in. but at the same time...she is a final girl, in spirit.

[immediatebreakfast]

Sometimes I wonder if despite being such a nice book Dracula is destined to have horrible adaptations that don't care about the original material, while the few good ones remain hidden for avid readers to see.

Yeah the Drcl Midnight Children manga is still shit, and it twisted all of the characters so beyond that the only thing they share is name. Warnings for sensitive content regarding sexualization with Lucy because I do warn you it gets really gross.

Shinichi Sakamoto literally had the easiest job in the world if he wanted to adapt Dracula into manga since he already has a gothic art style that could have been the perfect ring for the novel. We have already seen in the Manga Classics adaptation that you only need to draw what is happening in the novel, that's it.

Just grab your ink pen, and let Stoker's writing do the heavy lifting while you go crazy drawing all of the dresses, and the bats.

But nooooo! Everyone thinks they have the Big Brain™ to "subvert" Dracula while doing what everyone else has been doing but worse every time. The same tropes, the same complexes, the same beats, even making Dracula the protagonist. All of it feels the same, and Midnight Children does this too BUT WORSE.

It's infuriating to see Mina and Lucy portrayed like this. Also I only mention Mina and Lucy because these girls are the only characters who got any "dept" in this story, everyone else is a downright cardboat cutout, or worse a stereotype (Guess who is this one). Again, these modern writers end up being more sexist than century old irish writer with all of these "subversions" somehow.

We start with Mina Murray, a peasant girl who managed to get into Whitby's only boys academy which makes her a pariah among her peers, and subject of bullying for being first a girl, and second poor. This Mina is... pitiful.

She is not the Mina Harker/Murray Train Fiend, lady journalist, and leader of the group. This girl is only Mina in name, and in typewriter use because this is just a poor teen girl desperately trying to survive in the middle of a hellish school while surrounded by bullies. Drcl Mina is intelligent, but only in information, she tries to document just like Mina Harker, and the narrative conveniently spits on her efforts by having Dracula somehow tamper her precious typewriter.

Even with all of drcl Mina's wits I don't feel the same resolution, and admiration that I felt for Mina Harker in the novel. The manga is only presenting a poor girl named Mina scraping at every small bit of information she can find to somehow explain all of the supernatural shit she is seeing, and the sudden sickness and death of her only friend. I don't want to cheer for this Mina, I want her to grab her bag, and get the hell out of that school and out of Whitby even if it means abandoning Lucy because the conflict feels pointless. It feels like something that she can't win, or fully understand because SHE IS A CHILD.

A child that is trying so hard to be voice of the group while no one listens to her. All of Mina's qualities, and intelligence are not there because the story downright erased the epistolary format that gave her so much charm and character to make way for shock value scenes that only paint Drcl Mina as a pitiful fool going in circles for trying to win against Dracula.

We all know that Jonathan is Mina's other half, the only person who defends her, and loves more than god itself through the whole narrative. However, having Jonathan with Mina in Midnight Children could mean that Mina would have some sort of supporter, and that doesn't make room for tragedy™ so no Jonathan for Mina!

Now, talking about Lucy (Luke). How the fuck Sakamoto decided to make this Lucy a trans girl, then immediatly sexualize her in the most gross way possible. It's a new layer of grossness because in this adaptation is very textual that Lucy is trapped inside Luke, and she has to pretend to be a boy in front of everyone else except when she is alone with Mina.

It could have been a sweet, but rather tragic story about Lucy trying to overcome her own internal battle with her gender along with her trying to make sense of her upcoming tragedy masked as a chronic illness.

But no, this Lucy is passive, midly cruel, and reduced to a puppet device for gross sexual scenes that borderlines on transphobic voyeurism. Remember that Midnight Children Lucy is a TEEN.

She never lifts a finger to make the suitors stop their bullying towards Mina despite her calling her "my only friend." She never tells Mina of any pranks, nor consoles her in her lowest moments. This Lucy is every adaptation Lucy that paints her as the whore to the madonna, and somehow becomes more useless because of the rampant sexism, and the perceived sexualization that will always follow Lucy's character despite her being a symbol of purity, and the perfect victim.

Just to tell you that the first encounter between Lucy and Dracula here is on the Whitby shore, but instead of being a glance of red eyes that incites dread, teenager Lucy is alone when wolf Dracula steps on Whitby soil, and something really gross it's implied for shock value, and I had to put the phone down, and take a moment.

ALSO STOP DRAWING 15 YEARS OLD LUCY NAKED JUST STOP. IT WILL NEVER LOOK ETHEREAL NO MATTER HOW MANY FUCKING FLOWERS YOU DRAW ON THE PANEL BECAUSE THE FOCUS IS ON LUCY BEING NAKED. THERE IS LITERALLY A FUCKING PANEL WHERE LUCY IS COMPLETELY NAKED, AND EVERYONE (INCLUDING ADULT VAN HELSING) JUST STARES, AND IT HAS EVERY SINGLE INSULT ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and that scene is so cheap edgy that I can't.

Also all of the symbolism, and mystery of the bloofer lady is gone because here vampire Lucy graphically kills the children she feeds from, so... another plot line into the trash.

[chaoticbooklesbian]

Who is your favorite novel protagonist you read as a lesbian even though they are not explicitly written as such?

Ooooo, this one's tough. Especially as a kid, I tend to take books quite literally as I'm reading them, so it doesn't really occur to me to headcanon the characters as other than what they are until I see other people talking about them and I go "oh yeah, that makes sense"! My favorites, once I actually get the headcanon going, are Mina Murray and Lucy Westenra from Dracula, specifically as a couple. I think of them as bi, not necessarily strictly lesbian, but in a lot of time periods, lesbian included bi women, so I'm deciding it counts! They are poly and in love with both each other and their betrothed and no one can take that away from me.

[sapphickittykatherine]

Mina Murray is the protagonists fiance in Dracula and she’s exactly like Kitty just likes landscapes a little bit more :,)

(thought I’d let you know lol <3)

THANK YOU <3 i will read dracula at some point and keep a keen eye out! any character like kitty is a blorbo of mine

[kyoko-minion]

YOUTUBE -

Bram Stoker's Dracula , Lost In Adaptation ~ The Dom - Dominic Noble

From Protagonist To Romantic Prop : Mina Murray's Transformation - Princess Weekes

How Mina Murray Became Dracula's Girlfriend - Princess Weekes

The Lightning Thief , Lost In Adaptation ~ The Dom - Dominic Noble ( First 2 minutes...)

Jonathan Harker has aged quite well into the 21st century, but the reputation he's had for being weak and useless really does make me sad because it proves that people really do just see a character needing help for like. a temporary bad period. and then that character is weak for forever. For the record, if Jonathan could never face Dracula without shutting down, I would still love and support him. But in the text this reputation is so baffling because uh, *checks hand* HE LITERALLY IS THE ONE TO KILL DRACULA. Like oh because he was traumatized and needed mental care, because he dissociated that one time seeing Dracula, you just ignore all the times in the text he is unequivocally not useless? Your impression of him is made forever on the fact that at one time he could not hold it together and needed help?

[spider-xan]

I have one more thing to say regarding the projection of modern gender politics onto the Harkers that's just not supported by the text or taking the contemporary context into account - see my previous post, re: Jonathan being over-idealized as progressive - before I move on to other topics, and I'm not going to go into as much detail right now and may re-visit this later, but - I love Mina, and she's a wonderful character and heroine who both rises above her author's biases and her time period AND is constrained by them in a very realistic, complex way, even by modern standards, but fun memes and character appreciation aside, it's really disheartening sometimes to see her very human and multi-layered character with a complex, fraught relationship with feminism in-universe and on a meta level flattened into some kind of flawless superwoman who is single-handedly going to save the day as the novel's only hero bc she is some kind of Exceptional Woman and stereotypical Strong Female Character TM who is a fearless warrior woman action hero and modern-day feminist stuck in the body of a Victorian woman who is going to slamdunk the men with FEMINISM while she also has to babysit them bc they're useless stupid babies who can't stand a strong, independent woman, etc.

Like, I'm being somewhat facetious and exaggerating for effect, and again, memes are fun, but this isn't actually a feminist reading bc it's ironically dehumanizing, does a disservice to her complex character, posits that she can't be truly heroic unless she's punching or shooting people like a traditional male hero (though yes, she should be included, I'm not arguing against that), gets into gender essentialist woman good man bad thinking that's not fair to any character or the text, and reinforces the idea that individualism is superior to collectivism - which completely goes against the surprisingly progressive, humanistic, and hopeful theme of the novel that teamwork and collective action saves the day for the heroes, in contrast to Dracula the ultimate individualist operating alone.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 15 Portrayals of Mina Harker

As I said in my past list, the famous Van Helsing is actually NOT the main character of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula.” He’s the leader of the team, sure, but he’s more along the lines of Merlin in Arthurian lore, rather than the main protagonist proper. It’s hard to say who the main protagonist of Dracula is, really, since the structure of the book makes it rather ensemble in nature…but if I had to cast a vote, I’d probably say that Mina Harker (nee Murray) is the best option for that role.

I say this because, in the same breath, I would also say that Mina is one of the most maligned characters in all of literature, and certainly in the long history of Dracula. And not just in adaptations, either: even the novel ITSELF shortchanges Mina by the end of the book. In the novel, Mina is intended to be Stoker’s idealization of the “New Woman,” a concept prevalent in Victorian times: a feminist icon who is still good at heart, and still able to have feminine leanings, but is also just as competent, willful, intelligent, and interesting as any of the male characters in the book, if not more so. She’s one of the most proactive characters in the novel, as she and Van Helsing are really the ones who lead the charge against Dracula. She’s even the one who helps lead the other characters to the vampire in the climactic final chapters…yet despite this, she plays almost no role in the final battle against the Count. Neither does Van Helsing, for that matter. They just…kind of watch the other characters take care of things. 

On top of that - and this is something critics have pointed out many times since the novel’s publication - this “strong working woman’s” oh-so-glamorous job is…being a secretary. And Stoker’s cast tries to build that up as if it’s something to be REALLY freaking proud of, as if Mina is the world’s coolest gal because she’s so good at this particular job. There’s nothing wrong with that profession at all, of course…but I think most can agree that’s not really the kind of work that those in favor of the “New Woman” ideal had in mind, then or since.

These flaws are fairly minor in the grand scheme of the novel, I would argue…but one could see them as portents of the mistreatment Mina has suffered in adaptations and reimaginings since. Many versions of Mina depict her as little more than a damsel in distress; a much weaker character who ultimately is only there to be saved by the rest of the cast. Others take the liberty of crafting a romantic subplot between herself and Dracula; sometimes this angle CAN be interesting, if it’s handled a certain way, but I often feel it’s a total misunderstanding of the intent behind her character. Plus, it makes things difficult, since Mina IS a married woman (or at least engaged, depending on the version you look at), and I think most of us can agree that creates some questionable subtexts. Even her NAME is subject to mismanagement: in some adaptations, Mina is referred to as “Lucy,” while the Lucy character is swapped to “Mina,” which only confuses things more. With all that said, there’s no better way to look at how Mina has evolved over the years than for me to present the versions of her I like most from all the Dracula-related stuff I’ve gathered. (pauses) Well, actually, there probably ARE better ways, but this is my technique. So, having rambled all your ears off by now, let’s waste no more time: here are My Top 15 Portrayals of Mina Harker!

15. Agnes Moorehead, from the Mercury Theater Radio Version.

Moorehead, of course, is a fantastic actress, and her performance, on its own accord, is pretty good. However, the Mercury Theater’s treatment of the novel’s plot - which had to be highly truncated for time - means that the character doesn’t even appear till I think about halfway through the entire production. As a result, a lot of what makes Mina so interesting isn’t really present in the radio show. Still, hearing future Endora as Mina makes for some interesting listening, if nothing else.

14. Kate Shindle, from Dracula: The Musical (2011 Studio Cast Recording).

Frank Wildhorn’s musical version of Dracula has a LOT of problems, not the least of which being the way it treats Mina’s character. This is one of several versions that tries to create a romance between Dracula and Mina, and in my opinion the execution of this concept here is…well…not the greatest. Tie this to some of the musical’s other flaws (there are several), and you can see why she ranks low. However, I will give credit to Kate Shindle - an actress I admire greatly, who has worked on several Wildhorn projects - for her work in the role on the 2011 Studio Cast Recording, who probably made this role work about as good as anybody reasonably could manage.

13. Melissa Stribling, from the Hammer Horror Films.

Hammer’s first Dracula film, “Horror of Dracula” (as it’s known in the states), is quite possibly my favorite Dracula movie of all time. (“Favorite.” Not “best.” I will always contend that there is a difference.) With this in mind, I’ve always felt mixed feelings about Mina’s treatment in the movie. Actress Melissa Stribling does a very good job, and I will say this is one of the first versions of Mina I think of when I think of the character’s name. HOWEVER, her ultimate role is essentially just being “the housewife,” so to speak: she isn’t nearly as proactive as in the novel, and while she does START to turn thanks to Dracula in the film, we never get far enough to see the full contrast between her true self and her half-vampiric change, which I’ve always felt to be one of the most interesting parts of her story arc. Also, it’s worth pointing out that the Hammer version (for reasons no one can explain whatsoever) swaps characters around: everyone has their names right, but for some reason Mina is depicted as Arthur Holmwood’s wife, while Jonathan Harker is instead engaged to Lucy. One of many times where characters are fiddled around with for no apparent reason, as you’ll see.

12. Maria Rohm, from the 1970 Jess Franco Film.

Rohm’s Mina is one of the stronger versions on this list, as she is counsel to just about everything the men do in the story, tries to save Lucy from Dracula, and even interrogates Renfield at one point, nearly getting killed in the process. However, much like in the novel, she’s ultimately shortchanged by having basically nothing to do with the Count’s final defeat, and I personally felt still more could have been done with the character than the film ultimately tried. It’s hard to explain, but I just don’t feel I can, in proper conscience, place her higher.

11. CindyMarie Small, from Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary.

As I said on my previous list, in this surrealist dance-based motion picture, all of the male characters from the story are depicted as…well…creeps and jerks, to put things in the kindest possible words. As a result, the two primary female characters - Lucy and Mina - take center stage as the true heroines of the story. In Mina’s case, she proves to be the stronger lady, as - after being kidnapped by Dracula and whisked back to his Castle - she is able to resist the vampire’s temptation and actually helps the men take down Dracula. In fact, one could argue it’s really Mina who is responsible for the Count’s defeat; she doesn’t drive the stake through his heart, but the men could not have done it without her help. Ironically (and intentionally so), the men take all the credit despite this, and still treat Mina like a child or a trophy in the end. Ah, the patriarchy of Victoriana…what foolery…

10. Helen Chandler, from the 1931 Film.

Chandler’s Mina is arguably one of the weakest versions of the character on the list, so it’s probably surprising for many to see her so high up. Well, the fact of the matter is that I really like the classic Universal version of Dracula (despite the fact several elements of it have admittedly not aged very well), and - much like Stribling - Chandler is one of the first versions of Mina I think about when I utter the character’s name. In the Universal film, Chandler’s Mina is very much depicted as a damsel in distress; ironically, it’s LUCY who is depicted as more of a “modern woman,” despite smaller screentime. (More on that another occasion.) Instead, Chandler is more of the typical society lady: repressed, glamorous, and idealistic. Dracula’s corruption of Mina, turning her into a vampire and causing her to become attracted to him (in here not so much a love story so much as just another way of him controlling her), is symbolic of the vampire’s influence corrupting her innocence and the order of society as a whole. While this is totally NOT what Stoker’s idea for the relationship was (this is actually more what he tried to do with Lucy than with Mina), I do like Chandler’s performance. She goes through various stages, from a prim and proper young lady to someone more playful and sensual…and finally seeing her go into vampire mode, where she behaves more like an animal than a human being with a deeply unsettling, predatory slowness that really plays into the idea of the undead. Not accurate at all, but very unique.

9. Lupita Tovar, from “Spanish Dracula.”

For those who don’t know, the “Spanish Dracula” is the colloquial reference to the Spanish-language version of the classic Universal film from 1931. Due to the technical and budgetary standards of the time, whenever a movie like this was going to be released to other countries, instead of doing dubbing or subtitles, studios would basically just make the film all over again, using the same sets and often a lot of the same costumes, but now with a different cast and crew all speaking that language. Tovar’s Mina - or “Eva,” as she’s called in the Spanish version - is honestly more interesting than Chandler’s. Tovar’s Mina is more vivacious, youthful, and has a sort of fiery quality to her performance, which becomes downright manic and feral when she goes into vampire mode, making for a more memorable character, in my opinion. It’s the same basic character, but much less “stiff.”

8. Minnie Mouse, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.

Here’s a shocker for you: this might be one of the most book-accurate Minas, in some ways, on this entire list. No joke. One of the things I love about the graphic novel version of “Dracula Starring Mickey Mouse” is that the people who made it clearly loved the original book and gave it a VERY thorough read. A lot of the humor and intrigue in the comic comes from stuff that you will only get if you actually read the original book. Case in point: Minnie makes for a PERFECT Mina Harker, as, like Mina, Minnie - by typical default - is able to be romantic and sweet, but is also perfectly capable of standing up for herself and won’t hesitate to give somebody a piece of her mind if she needs to. She has the same role in the storybook version, which is only appropriate.

7. Greta Schroder, from Nosferatu.

It’s weird that the Mina character from the very first true Dracula film (not counting the lost film “Dracula’s Death,” which is a whole other can of worms) is still one of the best, in my opinion. In the 1922 German Expressionist classic, the Mina character is “Ellen Hutter,” the wife of Thomas Hutter, the Jonathan character. She is once again the main character; a woman pure of heart (film’s words, not mine), who is tormented throughout the film by the vampire’s powers. Yet she struggles on, determined to find a way to destroy the vampire herself, ignoring her husband’s fears. Eventually, she finds out the only way to defeat Orlok (Dracula) is to sacrifice herself, and does so to save her hometown. Admittedly, she’s also shown fainting about…five times throughout the picture, but to be fair, if I had to deal with a vampire like Orlok, I’d have trouble staying conscious, too.

6. Ellie Beaven, from the 2006 BBC Radio Version.

Honestly, not sure what to say about Beaven’s work in the BBC Radio version. (Obviously, no, she is not in costume for Mina in this image, but she certainly looks like she’d fit the bill there.) I just think she does a really good job, plain and simple. Also, this is one of two versions I’m aware of where Mina and Lucy are depicted as being sisters, instead of just being best friends. Doesn’t really impact the story, but the other one was also made by the BBC. You may now insert the “If I had a nickel” meme here, if you care to.

5. Winona Ryder, from the 1992 Film.

I really struggled with where to place Winona Ryder’s Mina in the ranks here. Some people will probably think she’s much, MUCH too high up, while others will think that, despite making the Top 5, she’s too far down. I actually used a method a friend suggested: looking at the highest placement I could put Ryder’s Mina at for me, and the lowest I felt was earned, and finding the median between them. That median just so happened to be either 5th or 6th place, and between Ryder and Beaven, I do think I prefer the former SLIGHTLY (though, once more, I'm not sure why), so fifth place it was. Ryder’s Mina tries to combine the strong, independent, capable, charming lady from the book with a raw, sexual edge and a romantic daliance with Dracula, and…in my opinion, the result is something of a mixed bag. As popular as this film is, and the way Mina and Dracula’s romance is depicted, I actually feel the writing is clumsy on Mina’s part, in terms of her motivations and the way her relationships with other characters are depicted. HOWEVER, I think that Winona Ryder gives one of her absolute best performances in this movie, and her work as Mina is probably the first performance of hers I think of when I think of the actress. She manages to maneuver skillfully through the clutter and creates an interesting character to watch as a result. Ultimately, Number Five just felt like the best balance between the pros and cons for me.

4. Kate Nelligan, from the 1979 Film.

When it comes to versions of Mina who have a romantic daliance with a more sympathetic Dracula, I think Kate Nelligan was the first…and I would also say that she was the best. I should point out, on that note, that this film is one of the ones I mentioned before where the names of Mina and Lucy are switched: Nelligan’s character is NAMED “Lucy,” but the actual character HERSELF is clearly meant to be Mina. Apparently, this change was made simply because the writers liked the name “Lucy” better, which…is a bit of a dumb reason, in my opinion, as it just makes things more confusing, but whatever. I’m going to continue to refer to the character as “Mina” here, for consistency’s sake. In my opinion, Nelligan’s version succeeds at what the Ryder version (among others) would later try to accomplish: depicting Mina as a strong and competent woman who can stand up for herself and has full agency in her life, while also creating some interesting tension by having her form a romantic attachment to Dracula, and ALSO still having her relationship with Jonathan ongoing. How did they do this? Eh, watch the movie yourself to find out and see if you agree; I haven’t got time to go through it all here.

3. Isabelle Adjani, from Nosferatu the Vampyre.

Just like our previous pick, this version once again reverses character names, with this character being called “Lucy,” even though the actual role is clearly that of Mina, and vice-versa. It also came out the same year as the previous pick, 1979. (Again, insert “if I had a nickel” meme here.) This remake of “Nosferatu” (the first of no less than three, the other two of which have yet to gain public release) expands on the version found in the original film, showing even more of the character’s struggles as she tries to combat the vampire, even having her directly confront Dracula at one point. Interestingly, Dracula is depicted as a sympathetic character in this one, but he and Mina do NOT have a romantic interest in one another; that’s very rare in adaptations. Just like in the original version, Mina ultimately sacrifices herself to stop Dracula, and since Dracula is depicted as a sympathetic antagonist as well, that makes the ending all the more tragic.

2. The Version from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

If there’s one way to make Mina independent, it’s to completely separate her from the rest of the cast in “Dracula.” I’m talking about the comic version here, by the way, not the one played by Peta Wilson in the 2004 film adaptation. While Wilson’s Mina isn’t BAD, per say, she is…very, VERY different from the one in the Alan Moore comic series. In the original comics, Mina is actually the leader of the titular League. She has no powers in the comics, but is instead depicted as a capable and charismatic leader, as well as a surprisingly gifted strategist; after her adventures in the novel, Mina has actually become an even stronger woman than before, and shows no fear in the face of opposition from characters like Mr. Hyde or the Invisible Man. She forms a unique romantic relationship with Allan Quartermain, and has some…COMPLICATED feelings in regards to her past, and especially towards the (presumed late) Count Dracula. Again, the movie version isn’t necessarily bad on her own merits, but the comic is definitely a more interesting character between the two.

1. Judi Bowker, from the 1977 BBC TV Film.

This TV production is quite possibly the most book-faithful adaptation of the novel ever put to the screen. By extension of this same fact, Bowker’s pretty-but-not-prissy Mina is quite possibly the most accurate interpretation of her character ever put to the screen, as well. The only major change for her character is that this is the other BBC rendition I mentioned where Mina and Lucy are made to be sisters, rather than just best friends, but this really doesn’t cause a HUGE impact on the story. Indeed, Bowker’s Mina even gets some slight IMPROVEMENTS from the original, as she and Van Helsing take direct part in the final battle, instead of just watching it happen like in the novel. Easily the best Mina onscreen, bar none.