#and yet Mina is the reincarnated wife...

[anony-geist]

Jonathan Harker and Doomed Bride imagery:

-Lenore (May 4th-5th): Directly referenced ('Denn die Todten reiten schnell') on the carriage ride on St. George's Eve, when evil surfaces. Jonathan, covered with flowers and a crucifix, rides with his own disguised Death all night to arrive at his octagonal room and bed, like Lenore who is supposedly led to her marriage bed, which is actually her tomb. Death and the maiden.

-Shahrazad (May 7th-8th): Jonathan, after engaging Dracula in telling him his history, says that his diary resembles the beginning of Arabian Nights. The story's heroine, Shahrazad, is the new bride of a cruel vizier who kills his own wives (on their wedding night). She distracts his wrath and delays her own doom by engaging him in storytelling. She is meant to be the next victim, once he is done with her.

An obvious parallel is May 8th, but that night it's Dracula who speaks. Jonathan is the one who normally tells stories every night, until dawn. “Why, there is the morning again!” Dracula says. Jonathan says that this nocturnal existence has been taking a toll on him.

One thing is for certain. Like her, Jonathan is next.

-Bluebeard's Bride (May 7th+May 12+May 15): Not directly referenced in the novel, however, Jonathan bears a strong resemblance to Bluebeard's new bride being warned by her lord husband to never open a forbidden room in his mansion. She disobeys and enters it. She finds the corpses of his old brides, like trophies, which he had killed. She, again, is meant to be next.

Jonathan gets warned three times and indeed disobeys, opens the room, and finds (un)dead women who the Count once loved. We find out he is to be the fourth eternally entrapped victim in their company.

Two of these stories feature a powerful noble with a brand new wife he intends to kill, like his previous ones. In both stories she delays her fate by being diplomatic and playing along for survival. Two have the theme of execution on their wedding bed. As intimate as a bite on the throat on their final night.

[vamprisms]

dracula 1992 is one of those group projects where everyone puts their everything in except for that one guy (script) who fucking suucks

[lasarusbird]

I watched the 1992 Dracula movie prepared for the entire Mina/Dracula plot as well as the butchering of Lucy so instead my mind kept focusing on everything else about the story itself...

For example... So Vlad hates God because. His wife who we meet for 10 seconds killed herself over a misunderstanding, and he gets told that this means she is in hell. He has no proof of that (or even that it was a suicide?) beyond the doctrine he was already fighting for but he's now on an I Hate God Now and then I Will Feed On His Creation As Revenge tantrum specifically over this.

And what does he do when he concludes that his wife is back? That he was wrong to assume that she's in hell? That he was wrong about God, given that apparently God reincarnated her?

No, it's "the powers of time" that got altered by "destiny". Yet it's all from his merit, somehow: "I crossed oceans of time to find you (do ignore the three new wives in my harem)". He still goes "Look what your God has done to me!" even though he. You know. Absolutely self-inflicted it. And the movie wants me to sympathize with him for the divine injustice set upon him. lol. lmao even. spare me.

[rey-jake-therapist]

Dracula (movie)/TROP parallels

No idea why but this morning I started thinking of Francis Ford Coppola's movie Dracula (which is a very free adaptation of Bram Stoker's book), and realized there were many parallels to be made between the romance Mina/Dracula and Galadriel/Sauron... Since I love both, It gave me the idea of this meta.

1. Fate

It's fate that sent Jonathan Harker in Transylvania and with him, his picture of Mina, and fate that brought Sauron and Galadriel together in the middle of the ocean. Dracula recognized in the picture the face of his long dead wife Elisabeta, while Sauron recognized Galadriel as son as he saw her, probably from the light that emanated from her. Actually, he even reacts to the sound of her voice calling for help.

2. "I've crossed oceans of time to find you"

That's what Dracula tells Mina during the movie, as he's now sure she's the reincarnation of his wife Elisabeta.

Galadriel literally swims across the Sundering seas until she finds Sauron's raft. And then of course there's this sentence, which even if it was started by Adar, feels relevant to the post as it was completed by Galadriel and was an obvious callback to her encounter with Sauron:

Adar: An ocean of color against which everything else feels forever thereafter… Galadriel: …a dull gray.

4. Pretending and reluctance to reveal who they are

Dracula and Sauron both show an extreme reluctance at the idea that Mina and Galadriel see who they are. In Dracula's case, the reason is very clearly romantic: he doesn't want Mina/Elisabeta to see what monster he became, he wants her to see him at his best. That's why when Mina sees him attack Lucy under the form of a beast, he moans, "don't see me" and magically makes her forget what she just witnessed in horror. When he sees her again, this time in the street, he looks human, well dressed and pretty.

In Sauron's case, it's of course more dubious, but he expresses the fear of being rejected by her if she was ever to know all the evil things he did.

Another parallel to add :

In Dracula, Lucy, Mina's best friend, is attacked by Dracula and sees him in his true form while he forces her to drink his blood (among other things...). For the record, Dracula first came to the house because Mina lived there. But he didn't want to attack her, as he loves too much to curse her, so he decided to settle for Lucy.

In ROP season 2, it's Mirdania, Celebrimbor's smith and a very obvious stand-in for Galadriel, who gets to see Sauron's true form when she puts on the new ring they just forged.

I find the parallel interesting because like Dracula with Lucy, Sauron's not romantically interested in Mirdania and never showed interest in her before. Yet after this happens to her, he gets closer to her and can't help but notice her resemblance with Galadriel, going as far as touching her hair. It's a rather uncomfortable scene, which may foreshadow Mirdania's fate: he will probably possess her entirely, like Dracula possessed Lucy.

5. Bonding/Feeling of being lost and incomplete

Dracula manages to track Mina and pretends to be a tourist who needs a guide to visit London. They end up meeting several times and have a very romantic dinner, where it's confirmed that Mina is the reincarnation of his dead wife, Elisabeta when she instinctively knows what happened to her. They form an intense bond, at this occasion.

While she's on her way to reunite with Jonathan and marry him, Mina feels the loss of her "friend" but also feels his presence, as if he was at her side. Without him, it feels as if something's missing.

On a boat crossing the English Channel Mina throws mementos into the ocean MINA (to herself): It's odd but I feel almost that my strange friend is with me. He speaks to me in my thoughts. With him, I felt more alive than ever I had. And now, without him, soon to be a bride, I feel confused and lost. Perhaps, though I try to be good, I am bad. Perhaps I am a bad, inconstant woman.

In TROP, we see Galadriel bond with Halbrand and be vulnerable with him, and him with her.

In season 2, it's made very obvious that she misses those moments and that while being angry at him for deceiving her, she feels the loss of the connection they had. This feeling is mixed-up with bitterness, because she's now certain that it didn't mean a thing to him, while it meant everything to her.

Like Mina, she can hear Sauron call her while daydreaming, and it's very likely that some of the visions she has thanks to Nenya are in fact sent by him.

Before Adar, she completes his sentence where he describes how Sauron made people feel, revealing that everything else is a "dull gray".

6. Murder of a beloved parent/friend

Dracula finds in Mina's friend a new victims, and comes repeatedly at night to attack her and drink her blood, until it finally kills her and turn her into a vampire. Mina is very much like a sister to Mina. Sauron killed Galadriel's brother, Finrod.

In Dracula, it results in a very beautiful and heartbreaking scene where Mina cries out because she realizes this man is the monster who killed her best friend, and yet admits she loves him.

Of course in TROP there's nothing that straightforward (*delulu mode on: yet! *delulu mode off*). But she's clearly conflicted about how she feels about him, even now that she learns the dreadful truth. She doesn't refuse his offer to be his queen straight away, even after he masquerades as said brother to coaxe her into believing that he's in fact the good guy, in all this. Dracula handles it much, much better.

Of course the love story between Dracula and Mina is different on many other points from Haladriel, as Mina fully accepts her feelings for Dracula and embraces (quite literally) his darkness, while it's very likely that Galadriel never does that.

But I still find these parallels lovely...

[margridarnauds]

The most funny thing about people complaining about DracMina is that there are not actually hoards of DracMina shippers running around, creating ship content or highjacking discourse about Dracula, Mina, novel and such. Yet those complainers are acting as if they are personally oppressed by those shippers while it’s not the case, and it wouldn’t be the problem at all if they were not so obsessed with the shippers or the ship itself tbh.

That's always been what's most bizarre about it because ???? Where are all these Dracmina shippers? Do they have a secret discord server where they talk about Victorian gothic villainfucking? And they didn't invite ME? Can I join?

But like. The truth is that even pre-DD, there wasn't a TON of Dracmina fanfiction/general content, whether it was romanticized and fluffy or not. I've been circling around the Dracula fandom since 2011, scoured for fanfic, and...there was maybe ONE really good series that was dark. ADAPTATIONS are overwhelmingly pro-Dracmina, fine, BUT. A lot of the problems that people complain about. Are only really a major Thing. After Bram Stoker's Dracula. Which imo indicates a broader problem of people getting their first taste of Dracula from that film + its subsequent adaptations and then expanding it to cover ALL Dracula adaptations/interpretations of Dracula. I've ALWAYS seen this kind of endless complaining about Dracmina as if that's a way to prove that you're one of the Real Fans who understands that the Vampires are Bad. Like, congratulations, you read the book! You know that Dracmina is not canon in it! Now go and make content for something you actually DO like! Have some useful conversations about the novel and the themes in it! ANYTHING.

And so many posts are framed as like "instead of Dracmina/the reincarnated wife thing, here is what they SHOULD DO" instead of framing it as "I think it would be really cool if...!" Because even when they're talking about THEIR ships, it's almost inevitably about Dracmina. J0nmina shippers are more obsessed with Dracmina than *I* am. (I wouldn't say I aggressively ship it so much as I hold a little bit of fondness for it thanks to that teen girl who loved the sweeping, gothic romance of the idea of it, especially the musical tbh.)

I see posts about one of my favorite musicals and it's inevitably "Dracula the Musical was kind of good...except for the DRACMINA!" Like, literally no one is forcing you to watch a musical that flopped on Broadway in 2004. (I have my OWN complaints about the musical and how it fails and Wildhorn's general problems with writing plots/women, but like.)

And...I do think that there are valid reasons for supporting Dracmina. Just. As a general thing.

For some people, they might genuinely like darker, fucked up ships. Even the reincarnation thing could be interesting IF it was played up for being as horrific as it should be. Having someone else's memories, someone who Is or Isn't you, being the target of that kind of obsession.

For some people, they might like the idea of "let us be monsters." I see that idea being applied MORE to J0ncula, re: queerness, and, for what it's worth, there is some Victorian literature on the vampire that ALREADY leaned into this. Like, you have (subtextually) queer vampires like Carmilla and Ruthven, who are the highest profile non-Dracula 19th century vampires, but you also have (confirmed) queer authors who were clearly using vampires as a way of discussing queerness like, for example, Eric Stenbock's Count Vardalek, which is an example of a tragic, tortured vampire who is doomed to kill what he loves. (There is also a LOT going on in THAT short story, a lot of which makes it highly uncomfortable for a modern audience, but that's another story.) I've written queer Dracula fic with the idea of the vampirism representing that kind of "I am determined to prove a villain, And hate the idle pleasures of these days" acceptance of the Other and of the Otherness that is present in the Self.

BUT. At the same time, it isn't as if there's ever been a golden age in which women have been allowed to just. Love monsters. It has always been radical. Even today. Women cannot read romance novels or lust after villains openly without handwringing over whether it is Moral or Proper or Whether We'll Get Dangerous Ideas from it. It was the case in the early days of the Gothic genre, when there were concerns over them being amoral (and, I mean, in partial defense of the pearl clutchers...a lot of the early Gothic novels make the later novels look tame in their gleeful use of murder, satanism, incest, and decay, thank you to The Monk.) And I can see the appeal of Dracmina on that level.

And all this is complicated by the racism implicit in the novel, of Dracula as the Evil Foreigner, with his ties to the past and his ancient lineage, who is acting as a threat to the Modern Anglo-American world. How do you grapple with that? It isn't easy. For some people, I know they choose to just. Ignore it. Or try to reframe it as Stoker somehow being progressive. And while I can get the appeal of, say, a black or Catholic Irish Mina, or a black or Mexican Quincey...for ME, that approach isn't satisfactory. I'm not saying it isn't satisfactory for ANYONE, or that it's Problematic or Wrong, but that it doesn't vibe for ME. *I* don't like it because I feel like it de-problematizes the novel, makes it about a multiracial queer polyamorous group trying to take down the Evil White Man. (And also still, unknowingly or not, plays into prejudices around people from the region usually defined in the west as "Eastern Europe" that are still present to this day and which are often invisible.) And, again, some people might like that! I'm not going to police how people recontextualize the novel so long as they understand why other people might *not* like that approach.

For me, I personally choose to aggressively love the Other. And I'm fully aware my approach isn't SUPERIOR, especially when you're dealing with the coded SA in the novel, both against Mina and Jonathan. I understand that some adaptations have slid into rape apologism/denial category. But I also think that some things I've seen come about re: for example, DD is people not really thinking when they say "we want to see Mina be sexually traumatized by an Eastern European monster so that she and her English husband can destroy the Foreigner." Foreigners or people who are not white or not considered to be white, in the Victorian Era and now, are a convenient scapegoat for sexual violence -- at the time that this is being published, lynchings are already happening in the States against black men who are accused of raping white women. Nine years before, while the figure dubbed Jack the Ripper instigated his reign of terror, graffiti appeared that said "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" -- while Ripperologists have debated the meaning of the graffiti, I have the very mundane explanation that an antisemitic Victorian decided to blame the Jews (TM) for the killings. One of the chief suspects of the crime was Aaron Kosminski a Polish Jew whose major sin, with Assistant Commissioner Robert Anderson claiming the main reason that he was never caught was that Jews would not testify against one another. People WANTED the Ripper to be an Eastern European Jewish man murdering and killing English Women (even in the case of the thoroughly Irish Catholic Mary Jane Kelley, her Welsh connections were emphasized over her Irish.) (Also in partial defense of white British men at the time, there were several people were like "hold up, this is kind of antisemitic.")

And I know this is dark stuff, but it's IMPORTANT to ground the depiction of Dracula as a sexual predator in the context that he was being written in, as a character, and why I personally...don't like an uncomplicated SA story. I don't want Mina to lie about it, either (I've seen this with Miranda/Caliban, which is another example of a classic of a classic with Problems with race, and I hate that as well). It's a delicate, delicate line, and I don't think a lot of adaptations have done it WELL, but I also don't think it's SIMPLE to just say "Dracula is a rapist, if you ship Dracmina, you're shipping a rape victim and her rapist." I'm not saying people have to like it or be comfortable with, but I'm asking people to understand like. Why people might go the OTHER way into it. Because the imperialist overtones of Dracula really are the elephant in the room.

One alternative would be to dig into Makt Myrkanna (aka Icelandic Dracula, which also has an earlier Swedish version), where Dracula is an active Eugenicist. It would still be uncomfortable, especially if someone kept the vaguely Lovecraftian ape cult under his castle. (...yes. Really.) BUT it would establish that Dracula isn't inherently a monster because he's a foreigner, he's a monster because he sees Vampires as a master race (which could also be interesting if the protagonists have the Victorian-typical attitude that White Westerners are the pinnacle of civilization, seeing those attitudes turned around on THEM.) I'm not opposed to that. But for me, I prefer vampirefucking.

The thing with classics is that...if they truly deserve the term 'classic'...they will touch people in different ways. Particularly the Gothic genre which relies on extremes of emotion and inner torment and family curses and decay. With the novel Rebecca, people often get into fights on whether Maxim or Rebecca was abusive, whether either or both of them were terrible people, whether Maxim was a misogynist or just an abuse victim lashing out, etc. etc. and the thing I quickly realized is that almost everyone who got really invested in it had a deep personal reason for interpreting it the way they did, and I could see the reasons for WHY they interpreted it that way even when I disagreed. (I still think Rebecca was abusive as a fyi.)

For some people, I know that Jonathan as a victim, as a potentially queer man, who is able to fight against his oppressor in whatever ways he can is really powerful. For some people, Renfield is really important as a mentally ill (again, potentially queer) man who is abused by the medical establishment. For some people, Seward is really important. For some people, the Harkers are important as an adorable, stable couple. For me, as a general enemy of the adorable, I'm neutral. I've read one analysis of vampires as a class thing, and I don't LIKE it because I still feel like it falls into the mistake that bad Leftist analysis generally makes of reducing everything wrong in the world to capitalism (in the same way that bad feminist analysis makes everything about misogyny). Etc. etc. etc. I'm invested in the women. In the women being happy, in having agency however they see fit. This can include with Dracula, with Jonathan, with Van Helsing, with each other, with any other number of options. (But I also want vampirefucking.) If something turns Mina into JUST Jonathan's girlfriend/Supportive Wife or JUST Dracula's bloodbag or even JUST makes them into Wholesome GFs, I'm not invested. I'm not invested in J0nmina, as a ship. I like it best when Jonathan says he'd become a vampire for her, when he's getting a little bit fucky with Victorian norms (though then there's the question of what "Victorian norms" are since, even though I don't think "I would give up Christianity for you" would be considered to be SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE for real people at this time, it's also definitely not out of place in general gothic lit at this time, and clearly those had an audience so...) I don't particularly find "Middle Class English Couple Has Children" is really that enthralling of an ending, when the ending is middle class domesticity. I understand it from a trauma viewpoint, but it isn't really my vibe.

ANYWAY, my point is, at the end of this essay: I agree with you, people should leave Dracmina alone, it's never been the norm in the fandom, I get tired of it being treated as the Root of All Ills in adaptations when there are usually worse things afoot, there are reasons for people to ship it, be careful with how you talk about Drac because it quickly can slide into bigoted territory with baggage that you might not even be aware of. Also most of the adaptations still suck because they don't let the women be people with agency. And if you reduce Mina to Jonathan's GF I hate you because you don't really care about misogyny in the adaptations, you just care that your blorbo has his supportive wife who cries and acts as a madonna figure for the men to huddle around.

[beevean]

You know, it's really funny how execution can make or break a concept.

In the Francis Ford Coppola film Bram Stoker's Dracula and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Dracula had a wife before he became a vampire, and said wife's death drives him to villainy. Centuries later, he meets the reincarnation of his dead wife, who he has a doomed romance with.

Yet because Bram Stoker's Dracula derailed a lot of characters not named Dracula and tried to make him out to be a tragic hero while he was still doing terrible things, I disliked the film, while the Castlevania games never pulled such a thing. It used his tragic backstory as a reason why he is the way he is, without excusing his behavior. As a result, it adds dimension to Dracula's character without feeling out-of-character.

Oh yeah, IGA clearly liked the movie and introduced elements of it with his own spin, such as Dracula descending into villainy because he returned home after an expedition only to find his wife Elisabetha dead, or him having the chance to live again with a girl named Mina (although Dracula needs to be reincarnated into a good person first lol)

Something I like about CV is that it has tragic villains, but it has a good balance between showing them in a sympathetic light and still reminding you that they're bastards. Dracula is a grieving man stuck in a cycle of rebirth, but he's also a petty monster who wants to make everyone pay for the sins of a few. Isaac lost everything he held dear through no fault of his own and fell prey to his own master's curse which lead him to a pointless death, but he's also a cruel, bitter man who unfairly caused the death of an innocent woman out of jealousy spite. Brauner lost his dear daughters in the war, but he also took two daughters from another man to turn them into vampires, and he gets called on his delusion by Jonathan. The story never tells you "look at these sad meows meows 🥺 they're not so bad after all 🥺", but they're not generic baddies either, and you come to see at least where they're coming from.

The show takes the "sad meow meow" approach when it comes to Dracula, Isaac and Lenore, and that's why I'm less than impressed. Dracula is a poor man too bereft with grief to think logically and who deserves to live again with his wife. Isaac is actually a gentle man who deserves peace after killing innocents to grow an army because he wanted to continue Dracula's slaughter. Lenore is actually a good, pacifist vampire who only wanted to protect Hector after resorting to deceit, manipulation, gaslighting and rape. You can feel the narrative holding your hand to push you to think a certain way.

Carmilla is a weird case because you'd expect her to be meowified, but she's just a generic badass #girlboss who gets no sympathy for her offscreen trauma. Still, not an elegant approach.

[serial-serializednovelreader]

If you want another adaptation to avoid for doing Lucy dirty is the 2020 graphic novel adaptation of Dracula, and the 2013 tv show, in which she is in love with Mina and Mina is a homophobe and rejects her and Lucy takes revenge by sleeping with Jonathan. So Dracula (who is in love with Mina and also a proto-feminist) targets Lucy to punish her for it and says "If you are going to act like a monster, then I'll make you one." and bites her, turning her into a vampire.

…wait WHAT???? Why is that a thing????!!! I get steadily more confused and horrified the more I learn about these adaptations (much in the same way that our good friend Jonathan gets slowly horrified by Dracula while living in his castle…too soon? I’ll see myself out).

I’m sorry Anon, you’re getting another Certified Nova RantTM, but it has to be said. Why can’t these adaptations let Mina and Lucy be friends anymore? And I don’t mean in the “they can’t be shipped way” (I don’t personally ship them, but I certainly respect it), I just mean in general. Like, literally, I can’t seem to find one adaptation where they’re even on pleasant terms??? Mina, at best, tolerates Lucy (usually because they make Lucy such a shallow character) and at worst…whatever that was you just described (can someone give me some bleach for my eyes, please or maybe @ldcurtain can brainsweep me idk??).

Stoker literally wrote them to be best friends. What is the problem with leaving them as BEST 👏 FRIENDS 👏 (or more, for the shippers in the room, but y’all know what I mean). Women supporting women shouldn’t be such a crazy concept in this day and age but I guess it is.

Another thing: I looked up the 2013 show to get a bit more of an idea on what kind of dumpster fire we’re looking at here, and guess what, y’all? It’s yet another “Mina is Dracula’s reincarnated wife” story. So yes, it gets WORSE! I have no idea who came up with that or why it’s a thing, but it exists in so many of these for no reason!!! I absolutely hate it!!! Even the musical, as much as I like it, does this — or implies it IIRC — for no reason. As many of you have said before me, it a) takes away all of Mina’s personality and agency, b) makes a woman-centered story (because while Jonathan is the protagonist, Mina is right there next to him and does take center stage a lot, as she should 💞💫) all about a man and c) is just boring at this point. Not to mention all she does in these is go “but guys 🥺🥺🥺 I don’t want this guy who killed my bff and a bunch of innocent people (INCLUDING A LITERAL BABY) to die 😫 he’s just misunderstood 😣😖 I can fix him 🥰🥹 wjth the power of love 😍🫶” girl…go back to Pick-Me school!

Give me Train Fiend Mina, give me the Mina that makes Jonathan promise to kill her if she turns into a vampire, the one that LITERALLY BEATS DRACULA AT HIS OWN GAME WITH HIS HYPNOSIS??? The one that shows the men in her life that they’re ridiculous for leaving her out of their plans because she’s too “fragile” for it. But also the Mina who comforts Jonathan when he’s emotionally broken after his encounters with Dracula, the one who doesn’t push him for answers until he’s ready to give them, the one who’s excited to be a wife because she has a loving husband (because most adaptations make him “boring” and “too perfect” :/ — that’s a whole other rant). She’s so multifaceted!!!

I want that Mina and I’m beyond angry we don’t get to see her because the producers are too busy trying to make a different movie to see the value of the original character. It’s so upsetting!! All of these characters deserve better and I will never stop saying that.

[aliciavance4228]

oops I did ask wrong. I meant hot takes on gothic literature. For mine I hate most adaptions of Dracula

Oh my goodness, me too!

From what I've seen the 1992 ecranisation seems to be one of the most accurate adaptations of the book, though the fact that they decided to give Dracula an entire background story and make Mina the reincarnation of his dead wife just to make him more human is where I slowly begin to become dissapointed. It made both Mina and Dracula dirty, and the fact that there are so many people claiming things like "Oh, Dracula is about the repressed gay/female sexuality" despite the fact that both of these metaphorical acts took place without Jonathan and Mina's consent gives me the "ick". They two are happily married and Dracula is a little bitch, kill him! (Which actually happened, lol.)

For now I can safely say that the Dracula ecranisation which I despised the most is the Dracula: Untold one. That movie was american propaganda + misinformation at its finest (romanian here). Ironically enough I liked Nosferatu (despite the fact that it technically plagiarized the book) and Bela Lugosi's portrayal.

Carmilla >>> Dracula;

The Phantom of the Opera: I don't like how nowdays people collectively believe that Christine loved both Erik and Raoul, when in the novel she was in love only with the latter one. Erik is depicted in the book as a creepy, jealous and murderous incel, and the only strong feeling Christine had for him at the end is pity. And yet people still use Erik's tragic background story and twisted love for her in order to justify his disgusting behaviors and evil deeds.

Despite the fact that I loved Mary Shelley's Frankenstein I somehow wish that Dr. Jekyll would be considered the original "Mad Scientist" rather than Victor. Dude not only that was a grown man with finished, superior studies instead of a 19yo boy, but he also had the balls to experiment on himself.

Mary and Percy Shelley's Proserpine is deeply underrated.

While The Picture of Dorian Gray is generally a great read, Faust not only that depicts the original pact with the Devil, but is infinitely superior.

It would've been more interesting if the cat's name from The Black Cat by E. A. Poe would've been Dionysus/Bacchus instead of Pluto. I even made a post about it.

And... that's all that comes to my mind for now.

[nzbricks]

A Brief History of Dracula

Dracula has been an iconic mainstay of popular culture for nearly a century and a quarter. Bram Stoker's iconic novel went on to inspire countless adaptations and iterations of the now-stereotypical vampire. Here I have made minifigures of some of Dracula's most famous depictions and will give brief summaries of each.

The first on-screen depiction of the Count comes in 1922's Nosferatu; a Symphony of Horror, wherein the Count is portrayed by eccentric actor Max Schreck (Yup, THAT'S his name). This film is infamous for being an unlicensed depiction of Bram Stoker's story, wherein the story and characters were altered to avoid any legal consequences. Count Dracula was renamed Count Orlok, who has since become an icon of the horror genre in his own right. He is renowned for being a more primal, monstrous depiction of a vampire, where all of the guile and charisma of future variations are nowhere to be seen. I personally prefer this depiction of Dracula because it represents a long-gone era of history where vampires were terrifying creatures of folklore.

And now a man who needs no introduction; the one, the only, Bela Lugosi himself, who revolutionized not just the future of Dracula, but of pop culture as a whole. His charismatic, yet chilling depiction of Count Dracula would cement the character in the minds of people for generations. However, the events surrounding the film are what really set the standard for future depictions of Dracula, in ways often lost in the shadow of Bela's performance. For example, did you know the original Dracula film is only loosely based off of the events of the novel? Entire plot points, characters, and locations are switched around or removed entirely! This was to accommodate the stage-play version of the story, which is actually what the film was based on, not the original novel. Truth be told, going back to the film nowadays can be a rather disappointing experience. Of course, Lugosi steals the show with every scene he's in, but everything in between is relegated to a slow, boring crawl, that climaxes with the OFF SCREEN death of the Count. All in all, a historic but rudimentary step in Dracula's history, one that would be re-visited, parodied, and and redone out the wazoo until our next step in Dracula history...

The story of the Dracula stage play would be the one to be revisited countless times following the 1931 Lugosi film, as it was the one that set the standard. This would all change 61 years later, when Francis Ford Coppola directed Bram Stoker's Dracula, a film starring Gary Oldman as the titular character, and following the plot of the original novel, as inferred by the title of Bram Stoker's Dracula. The result of their efforts was... something! I'll admit, while the film was by far the most accurate mainstream version of the story yet, the director did take some creative liberties that in retrospect butcher the novel almost as badly as the original 1931 film. For example, Dracula's devious plot to stalk a new feeding ground is undercut by an artificial romance between himself and Mina Harker, who in this iteration is his 'reincarnated' wife, Elizabeth. However, perhaps the most glaring diversion from the book is the appearance of Dracula himself, who in the early stages of the film dawns an outfit that has been endlessly memed upon in the years since... and with good reason. Gone is the "thin, pale man with thick black hair, a thin white mustache, and all-black clothing". On the other hand, I guess there isn't really a passage that explicitly stages his hair wasn't styled like a butt. This was part of the film's effort to be extra stylized, and I admire that effort. but in a film that is touting itself as the first grand return to Bram Stoker's original vision, I would have liked to have seen the character of Dracula done fair justice.

And that leads us to the present day! Vampire films are as popular as ever, and Dracula himself has just made a grand return to the big screen with the Last Voyage of the Demeter. The film makes a long-awaited return to the concept of Dracula as an actual monster, rather than a dapper, charismatic pale dude. Oh and by the way that last picture above is a custom version of Dracula, one that I would most like to see brought to the big screen. But yeah, that has been my brief look at the history of Count Dracula! I hope you enjoyed and learned something new! Happy Halloween!

[spider-xan]

Lbh here, that part of DD fandom which is so obsessed with Dracula accurate adaptation doesn't want novel accurate adaptation really- they want adaptation which ships Dracula/Jonathan, which makes Dracula's attack on Mina all about Jonathan, and which makes Jonathan the main hero who is some cryptid, action coolest man and female-coded boy in distress all at once, who single-handedly kills Drac at the end so everyone can understand how cool he's. [1/2]

I mean I saw same people who bemoan the inaccuracy of screen adaptations of the novel and complain about reincarnation plot in old 90s movie, and how much they want faithful adaptation of the novel, only to turn around and say that it’s great idea to make emotional connection between Drac and member of the human cast using reincarnation bit, but reincarnation plot should be done about Jonathan (!?) The hypocrisy. [2/2]

Yeah, exactly! Like, personally, I don't think an actually book accurate Dracula is a good idea bc of all the Victorian bigotry that is deeply embedded in the text - do we really want a film with evil Romani henchmen and where physiognomy is real and having a hooked nose is proof of a criminal nature? - and I cannot stand the argument that perfect textual copying is the gold standard for what makes an adaptation good, especially if the source material itself is extremely flawed and bigoted (like, sorry, but no, not all of the bigotry in the novel is Stoker deconstructing it and doing social commentary, I swear you can enjoy the novel while acknowledging those issues), but yeah, the fandom's idea of 'book accurate' isn't even that, unless you conflate personal readings and fandomization with the actual text.

I think a very clear sign of this is the way the fandom talks about re: Dracula - it gets praised as the best Dracula adaptation for being exactly book accurate, which, sure, one could make an argument that an audio book still has adaptive elements by virtue of being a different medium, but it's essentially just an audiobook reading of the novel, which gives it an unfair advantage compared to actual adaptations if your most important criterion is textual exactness; and yet, it does do things like hyping up the alleged Jonathan and Dracula 'romance' to the point of sidelining Mina and making Mina's own metaphorical rape about Jonathan, which even Stoker did not fucking do in a novel written in 1897, but the fandom would have you think this was totally in the book.

But yeah, like, people can like what they want and I don't have to like it myself, but I wish people would be honest that what they want isn't a 'book accurate' adaptation where Jonathan is respected as a member of the ensemble cast, but an adaptation where their favourite white boy Jonathan is a superhero who does everything bc he is the coolest person ever and all of the weird choices adaptations make with Mina like dead wife reincarnation soulmates with Dracula and 'it's not rape if she wanted it' (leaving aside the rapist foreigner problem issue) are suddenly awesome instead of gross and weird if it means white boys fucking and sucking bc representation matters or whatever the argument is now.

[minaharkerdailymirror]

Mina was glad she lived out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere then, because the book had taken the world by storm. Like adult twilight for those that had grown up with it (mina had never been so bored in all her life when she tried to read it one day when her leg had been broken and someone brought it to entertain her.) Successful things were harder to reach her since she lived as she did. The music she played was often the cassettes in the car that hadn't worn out yet. The shows she watched were bad reality TV and medical soap operas. She didn't really bother much with social media except when she was researching something. Sometimes she latched onto something that was popular but she was usually working. Or thinking about work.

Mina reached out and went to caress his cheek, "It's okay love, I didn't want the book about me to get published either."

She'd given the journals to a cousin, Bram, who had transcribed them, added a few things, given them a happy ending and then published them. All of a sudden her trauma was in media, and movies, and suddenly people wrote that she and her abuser were lovers and she was the reincarnated lost wife or some bullshit.

Mina never forgave Bram.

Maybe that was the reason Mina didn't dip her toe into what was popular much.

Mina kissed her friend's cheek, "We'll avoid aisle six then. Just in case."

That's where the books were kept.

Mina held out her hand, offering it for him to take. A show of support between friends.

Mina stopped and went to face him, she searched his face, the guilt weighing on her, "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to..."

Didn't mean to rip that bandage open? Maybe if she'd paid a bit more attention to the description, she'd have seen his name in the summary and drawn the parallel to the business card he'd given her when they'd parted ways that morning. But she'd thought it was fiction.

"I won't ask anymore," she promised, "You'll tell me if you want me to know. And whatever you tell me; whatever he did or you did,....we'll work through it."

It wasn't a full promise of commitment. Depending on what he told her, it may not be something they COULD work through. But she was willing to try. She wasn't stupid, she knew his hands ran red with blood. he was a 500 year old vampire. but maybe she could help him. Maybe they could help each other in their own twisted way.

[reikiajakoiranruohoja]

Thoughts on why adaptations rarely depict the source material ft. Dracula Daily

Now as we come to the finish line of Dracula Daily, there are many thoughts stirring in my head about it. I feel the strongest is how much of the actual story has been lost through adaptations.

Now, I have always known this, Frankenstein taught me well about the disconnect. But being a fan of urban horror makes vampires and therefore Dracula a much closer thing for me.

The biggest change you often see in adaptations is treating Dracula as Lucy's and Mina's saviour. He comes to take them from their stifling Victorian lives and gives them agency through vampirism. After all, those stuffy Victorians would never understand the sexuality of a woman!

Yet, reading the original novel, that is almost the opposite of what happens. Both Lucy and Mina are happy in their lives. Not in a 'they don't know any better' -way but actually and honestly happy. They have significant others who love them and would move mountains for them. Though they might be socially restricted by the society they live in and Mina honestly would do better in more open times, neither woman is trapped in their life.

We all know Dracula is a metaphor for an evil foreigner trying to corrupt good British women. Yet in adaptations trying to downplay this, the actual happiness of the women is ignored in favour of making Dracula the rescuing man.

In general, adaptations tend to vilify the protagonists in order to make Dracula look better.

One of the common methods is combining Jonathan and Renfield into one character. This conviniently removes Jonathan as a competitor for Mina's love and naturally continues the mindset that mentally ill people are lesser. In these adaptations, Jonathan's big rebellion is Renfield's big rebellion. A brave but in the end futile effort to stop Dracula.

This of course also means Renfield as a mentally ill yet very much intelligent person is completely removed.

Adaptations also tend to make the Suitor Squad into much more competent and hardened vampire hunters. Van Helsing is not someone who feels great regret over killing the brides, but a cold and ruthless vampire hunter. Quincy and Arthur often are omitted and Seward's age fluctuates a lot.

In short, what makes the heart of the novel is removed. The love the heroes have for each other is twisted and removed in favour of showing how backward the Victorians were.

To me, especially after reading through the novel through Dracula Daily, the sheer amount of care the heroes had for each other makes the story. Even when the men are idiotically removing Mina from important meetings, it backfires on them. Mina, despite her own self-doubts, is one of the most valued members of the group. She collected all the information together, she used something traumatic to get back at her abuser and even when she was almost turned, could still use her wits to help her team.

Mina is the MVP of the team and making her only important through her love of Dracula or even being the reincarnation of his wife removes so much of her badassery. Mina as a character does not need Dracula to be a strong character, she is strong -despite- him.

[rallamajoop]

Dracula canons in Yuletide 2022

Unsurprisingly, in the wake of that whole Daily Dracula thing, there were a lot of Draculas nominated for this year's Yuletide exchange this year ‒ not just a lot of Dracula characters, but whole different adaptations of the novel. And being that kind of terrible Dracula-nerd, I figured I'd make a list and share some notes on which-version-is-which. Now, I've only seen about half of these, and can't speak to what all the other folks who actually nominated them loved about them, but I'll take any excuse to ramble on about different Dracula-adaptations at this point, so here we go.

We've got a couple of movies, a couple of telemovies, a TV series and even a musical to cover here, so I'm just gonna put them all in chronological order, starting with the novel.

Dracula - Bram Stoker (Novel 1897)

Nominated characters:  Abraham Van Helsing  Arthur Holmwood  The Correspondent  Dracula  John "Jack" Seward  Jonathan Harker  Lucy Westenra  Lucy Westenra's Mother  Mina Murray Harker  Mr. Hawkins  Mr. Swales  Quincey Morris

Damn, Daily Dracula has done it's thing: folks have nominated basically everyone. (Well... except Sister Agatha. GDI, where's Sister Agatha, people?! Has that 2020 Moffat/Gatiss version put everyone off?)

But, moving onto the adaptations-

1. Dracula (Movies - Hammer) (1958-1974)

Nominated characters:  Dracula  Lawrence Van Helsing | J. Van Helsing  Lorrimer Van Helsing

Okay, yes ‒ this nomination was me. Look, Peter Cushing's Van Helsing was being reincarnated into whole new eras and having confusing chemistry with Christopher Lee's Dracula long before anyone ever thought to do the reincarnation-thing with Mina, and I want all the fic about it, is that so wrong? (Or, you know, the excuse to write some myself. Or really anything about these versions of the characters interacting ‒ I'm not picky!)

2. Count Dracula (1977)

Nominated characters:  Abraham Van Helsing  Jonathan Harker  Mina Harker  Renfield

One of the two British telemovie Dracula adaptations to come out of the 1970's (the 70's was a BIG decade for Dracula). This one was the more faithful to the novel ‒ too faithful, if anything, since some new ideas or creative storytelling could have gone a long way to distract from the limitations of the budget. That said, I did like their Dracula: the costuming isn't much to write home about, but he has enough presence to elevate every scene he's in (and, I mean, if you're going to get one thing really right in a Dracula adaptation...)

3. Dracula (2006)

Nominated characters:  Abraham Van Helsing  John Seward  Lucy Holmwood  Mina Murray

Yet another British television Dracula, this time one where Arthur Holmwood is tricked into helping bring Dracula to British shores by a vampire-worshipping cult, in the mistaken belief the Count can somehow cure him of congenital syphilis. No, really! Seriously though, my biggest disappointment with this one was it didn't go wild and weird enough ‒ the sad soap opera life of Arthur & friends just can't hope to compete with all that high-gothic camp, and 90 minutes just isn't time for all these ideas to breathe. But it must be said, Marc Warren makes a surprisingly compelling Dracula, and his one big vampire-sex-scene with Lucy is... quite something. Basically, I can definitely see why someone might want fic about these versions of the characters ‒ there's lots in this universe left to expand on.

4. Dracula: l'amour plus fort que la mort - Ouali (2011)

Nominated characters:  Jonathan Harker  Poison  Satine  Sorci

Well, okay. This one is, er, a French musical version? XD God, do I love the stuff you'll find nominated for Yuletide! So: not a version I'm familiar with, but going by this one summary I found, what we have here is one of the (MANY) post-1991-Coppola-version rip-offs where Mina is a reincarnation of Dracula's wife... but also one where Dracula hasn't spoken since his wife's death, and now employs three very gloriously campy servants to speak for him (Poison, Satine and Sorci, from the noms above). As someone who doesn't speak a word of French and knows this thing only from 5 minutes on youtube (I mean, the whole show's up there, though the quality's not great), these three are great value, and I can totally see why someone would nominate them for Yuletide.

5. Dracula (TV 2013)

Nominated characters:  Lucy Westenra  Mina Murray  Alexander Grayson | Dracula  Jayne Wetherby

A short-lived TV series reimagining of Dracula, where the Count shows up in London posing as an American steampunk inventor called Alexander Grayson, and yet another of the (many) post-Coppola versions where Mina is the reincarnation of Dracula's tragically-dead-wife, etc. Admittedly, this is an adaptation I know only by its reputation as the show that that finally gave us lesbian!Lucy (!!!) only to have her turn around and sleep with Jonathan for dubious plot reasons (theFUCK?) ‒ but I'd be the last to judge anyone who enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure and/or just wants to run away with the characters and let them have some real fun.

6. Bram Stoker’s Van Helsing (2021)

Nominated characters:  Abraham Van Helsing  Arthur Holmwood  John Seward  Lucy Westenra

Huh. Well, okay. First point: the poster is a lie ‒ this actually seems to be a fairly-straight, (very) low-budget film adaptation of the novel ‒ just one that starts about when Van Helsing arrives (ie, when Lucy is already very ill). So, more drawing-room-drama than Hugh-Jackman-material. Have not seen it, but have a trailer! Now you know just about as much about it as I do.

Honourable mentions

In the "do I even count this?" bonus round, we've also got the 2016 Van Helsing TV series (nominated characters: Axel Miller and Catherine) ‒ a show set post-vampire!apocalypse and starring a Van Helsing descendant. There's also a character called Van Helsing nominated for the Kyuuketsuki Sugu Shinu | The Vampire Dies in No Time manga, and a "Dracula Vance" nominated for a video game called Panilla Saga, about whom google will tell me nothing very illuminating. Ah, well. Seriously though, the total number of different Van Helsings nominated in this year's Yuletide must be some kind of record.

I'd also be remiss not to mention that the original 1872 Carmilla is also nominated, as is the excellent 1970 Hammer adaptation The Vampire Lovers. And rounding out our list of Victorian vampire lit, some weirdo has also nominated Varney the Vampire, but that one really needs its whole own post...

[tinkchick555]

@groovygirlie Sorry I’m going to post this way because I got a bit carried away and so it won’t fit the responses BUT (spoilers if you haven’t read Dracula but I’ve got so many instances I love!)

Gosh there’s so much I love about Dracula! I love the characters, but especially Mina, Jonathan, and Quincey! They’re such good people thrown into a terrible situation. Mina is compassionate and smart and devoted and kind. And I love that Mina’s kindness makes those around her better and braver people simply because of how she treats them. Jonathan is willing to die trying to escape, but he still tries to stop Dracula. His devotion to his wife is beautiful. They really are such a cute couple. (The idea that comes up in lots of adaptations with Mina being a reincarnation or interested in Dracula drives me up the wall because the characters are so clearly adoring to one another. She wouldn’t be interested in Dracula she has Jonathan.) Quincey is one of my favorite characters of all time. I love that he plays up his cowboyness for fun (while at heart being a true cowboy) but when serious things happen he’s very no nonsense. He’s not just willing to put his life on the line for the girl he loves, but for those around him who are kind and good and become his friends.

And we get this spookyy, suspenseful, and sometimes sad/tragic look at all these people. We feel Mina’s anxiety over Jonathan being gone. We feel sorry for all these men trying to desperately so save Lucy and rejoice with the characters when they succeed with Mina. But because it’s done mostly as journals, we also get little random thoughts they think or things they like.

To me the moral of the story is, to quote Mina, “the world seems full of good men, even if there are monsters in it.” We see truly horrific and sometimes gruesome things happen in the story and we also see people doing cruel and bad things, and yet the kindness and human ties are so strong.

Mina gives Quincey someone to cry to. Quincey immediately becomes someone willing to do anything for Mina.

Jonathan goes through a horrific trial to the point he tries to force himself to forget but trusts and loves Mina enough to let her make the decision about whether he should be told about his adventures again. And when he realizes it’s real, even though it almost killed him and almost made him lose his sanity, he puts himself at risk again to stop Dracula from harming others.

Van Helsing puts his own life on the line simply because he’s friends with Dr Seward and wants to genuinely protect even random strangers.

Arthur is willing to do something he knows will hurt him because he thinks it will (and does) save the immortal soul of the woman he loved.

Mina is willing to pity Dracula who is a monster and does a terrible thing to her because she realizes she would want to be treated with sympathy if her fate were like his.

Jonathan is willing to do literally anything to stay with or protect his wife. He refuses to let her suffer alone. (They really are a “for better or worse. In sickness and in health” type of couple.)

And we see such wonderful friendship! Lucy and Mina are so happy together and never jealous and wish each other all the best. Mina is protective over Lucy and always there to listen to her. Seward and Quincey hold no hard feelings toward Arthur when they all fall in love with the same girl and he gets chosen. None of the guys get angry at Lucy for not loving them. Quincey and Mina are such a cute friendship as well.

And we see this kindness in the random strangers all throughout the beginning who keep trying to stop Jonathan from going to Dracula’s castle or giving him crucifixes or praying for him. They don’t have to and they know that Dracula is an actual threat and could hurt them and they still try to warn him to stay away.

So this is a long winded way for me to say that to me, even with its flaws, it’s a book I absolutely adore.

[roroyaoi87]

Hey Roro, what ideas did you get for the prompts of soulmates and reincarnation? I havent heard you talk about those stories yet

Hi, anon. Well, an anonymous left an idea, but while I was reading that idea, it occurred to me that I could be inspired by the love story of Dracula and his wife Mina. Yes, it's going to be a vampire story mixed with umbrellas.

I haven't started writing it yet because I'm not even sure which couple to choose, my heart says Klive, because writing Five as a vampire would be interesting. On the other hand, it could also be one of the Sparrows. I don't know yet.

[vampireharker]

Things about Dracula 1931

Bela Lugosi is awesome.

But as much awesomeness as Bela Lugosi brings to the screen, he is still outshined by Dwight Frye whose portrayal of Renfield is fucking phenomenal. Seriously, do it for Renfield.

Renfield is younger, cuter, and probably even more insane than in the novel.

Van Helsing is way more intense and significantly less boring. A very straightforward kinda guy who does not mince words which is completely opposite of the novel. I like him a lot.

Instead of being a backstage threat, Dracula actually goes out of his way to make friends with these people. I wish that had happened in the novel.

Renfield. Just Renfield. He’s great, okay.

Look at him, like damn. If you need blood, my neck is all yours, baby.

Dr. Seward goes from being a reluctant Dad Friend of six at 29 to being an Actual Dad at very old. He’s Mina’s father in this version. At least it’s not as weird as it could have been: he could have been Lucy’s father.

There is no Quincey Morris. A moment of silence, please.

Arthur doesn’t exist, either. Lucy actually falls in love with Dracula. Which I really liked, too, and I’m surprised she doesn’t get the reincarnated wife trope in the more modern adaptations, that makes far more sense to me.

Probably one of the VERY FEW adaptations where Lucy isn’t treated like a whore who should be punished, she’s just a naive goth girl who happened to fall in love with the wrong guy.

Seriously, she’s goth, she recites death poetry. She’s amazing.

Speaking of love

JONATHAN IS THE LOVE INTEREST.

And that’s like.... ALL he is. His only role in this movie is to be like almost overbearingly protective of Mina. They aren’t even married yet in the whole film. Hell, RENFIELD is the one who goes to Castle Dracula instead of Jonathan.

Jonathan hates Dracula because he thinks Dracula is scaring Mina with spooky folktales. This boy is more of a brat than his novel version.

He is just as stupid as his novel version, if not more so. But at least he’s very, very cute. Like just stand there and look pretty, Jonathan. I wonder if that’s exactly what the director told David Manners to do with his character.

Mina is just a damsel in distress in this movie and nothing more, and it’s still very clear that she tops in this relationship.

Mina tries to eat a completely oblivious Jonathan and it’s glorious.

Jonathan: Look at the pretty moon.

Mina: Look at your pretty neck.

Jonathan: What?

Mina: What?

Van Helsing stops her from omnomnoming her own husband — er, boyfriend — with a crucifix which causes Mina to freak out and Jonathan is like “How dare you scare my very near future wife!?” Jonathan, honey...

He’s so fucking dumb.

But it’s cute, okay. Idk if any other actor could pull it off, but David Manners just makes it cute. Just... what a sweet summer child.

Van Helsing is the only one who gets anything done around here.

His little cat-and-mouse game with Dracula is awesome, and again, something I actually wish happened in the novel.

Van Helsing: You’re a vampire.

Dracula: And what of it?

The whole month long road trip in East Europe is nixed from the script, so they kill Dracula at Carfax Abbey next door. And by “they” I mean Van Helsing. Jonathan gets NOTHING, remember. He just runs around yelling “Mina! Mina! Mina!” For like the entire last five minutes of the movie.

So all in all, it’s not a bad adaptation, and quite enjoyable. I personally adore this movie a lot so it’s definitely worth the watch. Dracula has much more of an active character presence by interacting with the rest of the cast, Van Helsing’s and Renfield’s intensity crank up to like 11. The other characters are quite watered down but they are still likable, just a very rich family that didn’t ask to be harassed by a vampire.