#dracula meta

[iamnmbr3]

I do think it's really interesting that Dracula genuinely seems to enjoy talking to Jonathan Harker. Yes, partly he's trying to learn valuable information from him about English society, customs and laws etc. And yes he wants to practice his English with a native speaker - though clearly Jonathan was not his only source of English lessons. But it goes beyond that. Like when he's talking about the history of his family (well, actually events he mostly lived through but obviously he can't admit that) he gets really animated and just seems excited to have someone to monologue to. After all, he doesn't have that many people to talk to. I don't think in general his meals get much of a chance for a chat. Who knows how long it's been since he's really interacted with anyone (aside from the other vampires in the castle).

It's not a wholesome interaction of course. Part of the enjoyment he gets from their interactions is derived from the way he toys with Jonathan. But it does definitely go beyond simple necessity. He really goes out of his way to spend time with Jonathan, often speaking with him all night - i.e. the whole time that he gets to be awake. And he also goes out of his way to protect him from the vampire women in the castle, even after he's outlived his usefulness. And he becomes increasingly possessive of him - "this man belongs to me" and "tonight is mine" are certainly telling. It seems that initially Jonathan was just going to be fed to the vampire women right away, but then Dracula changed his mind and decided he got first dibs, something that wasn't initially in the cards.

I think this possessive fascination with Jonathan and the way he comes to find their interactions genuinely enjoyable are why Jonathan gets to stay alive so long. Even going poking around in Dracula's crypt the first time isn't enough to get him immediately killed that night. I wonder if in his own way he also was drawn to the "quiet dignity" that Mina mentions is one of her favorite features about Jonathan. Even in the face of fear and despair he stubbornly clings on. Dracula probably finds this makes Jonathan more entertaining and exciting to toy with than most victims, and may also feel a grudging sense of respect for him (although he still views him as an inferior).

[fanishjuli]

for three years I've been hearing about the Lucy Westerna polyship with her three husbands but now that I'm finally listening to re: dracula I have to point out that, by October most of these people could easily be into eachother if the way they talk/write about each other is any indication. like yes all of them worship the ground beneath Mina's feet but also they keep being sweet about the other guys as well

[vickyvicarious]

"He is young and strong; there are kisses for us all."

May 16

"He is so young and strong and of blood so pure that we need not defibrinate it."

September 8

Thinking about this echo, and the way Lucy and the suitors + Van Helsing provide a kind of opposing force to Jonathan and the vampire ladies + Dracula.

In both cases, we have the young, appealing innocent who is soon to be married and has entered a new phase of their life (Jonathan/Lucy). Both have an older foreign man become very interested in them and very fond of them in their own way (Dracula/Van Helsing). Both have three 'admirers' who want to 'love' them (vampire ladies/suitor squad).

Of course, noting this is nothing new. Plenty of people (and I myself) have pointed out these and other parallels between all these individuals. But I want to go a little farther with it today.

A vampire's 'love' is one of corruption and consumption. Jonathan was held captive in Dracula's castle, and forced against his will to adopt a largely nocturnal schedule*; he had to adapt in this and many other ways to his captor's way of life. The vampires had him in their control from the start, and he had to behave in certain ways to please Dracula lest he suffer consequences of his displeasure. Dracula was extremely possessive of Jonathan, right up until he wasn't going to be around anymore, and then he was happy to throw him aside for the others to devour. Despite this 'sharing', he and the vampire women are at odds and dismissive of one another (he spends most of his time shooing them away from Jonathan, they scoff at and mock him), and whatever love may have been there in the past is clearly long gone.

Human love is one of dedication and trust. The suitors (and later Van Helsing) all come to Lucy. Both initially, in visiting her to make their proposals at her house, and then later on coming to her home when she is ill; they come to her side when she is in need, and they drop what they're doing to adapt to her. When Lucy has to turn two suitors down, she feels awful about not being able to please them all, but each of them emphasizes that they don't hold it against her at all, and they will remain devoted to her friendship. None of them are possessive of her. (Admittedly, Van Helsing does somewhat frequently work to keep Lucy's loved ones apart from her, ushering Arthur away or drugging her to sleep when he's there; but he also invites them to come and help her with their transfusions.) Arthur, the one she has chosen at the exclusion of the other suitors, is notable for being especially welcoming to the others. It is on his behest that both Jack and Quincey arrive to help Lucy in the first place, and he is extremely grateful for and welcoming of their efforts in that vein (pardon the pun):

"Young miss is bad, very bad. She wants blood, and blood she must have or die. My friend John and I have consulted; and we are about to perform what we call transfusion of blood—to transfer from full veins of one to the empty veins which pine for him. John was to give his blood, as he is the more young and strong than me"—here Arthur took my hand and wrung it hard in silence—"but, now you are here, you are more good than us, old or young, who toil much in the world of thought. Our nerves are not so calm and our blood not so bright than yours!"

And this quote brings me to the next detail I find so interesting. In order to finally escape alive, Jonathan turns many of Dracula's tricks against him. Just to name a few, he does things such as: wall-climbing, sneaking around while Dracula is asleep, stealing Dracula's belongings. There are a lot of reversals between them in the last few days, both in Jonathan's explorations and his attack on Dracula. He's 'fighting fire with fire', so to speak, and it works to get him out of the castle. Later on, we see even more of this when he is hunting Dracula down near the end of the book.

He's far from the only person to do such a thing. Dracula himself is very deliberately doing this sort of thing throughout much of the book, from imitating Jonathan in the Castle to innovating ways to work around old vampiric limitations. And Mina is of course a whole example on her own of weaponizing the enemy's own tools against him. But so is this Van Helsing + suitor squad group in a really interesting way. Even Lucy herself, though due to circumstances, she's not the most intentional/active participant in doing so. Let's look back at that quote above again. Van Helsing says that Lucy "wants blood, and blood she must have" - in order to stop her from becoming a supernatural vampire, instead they willingly perform a sort of medical vampirisim. Here we once again see the contrast between modernity and the supernatural, and interestingly, how they overlap to cross purposes.

Dracula takes Lucy's blood away. Van Helsing (by proxy at first) gives it back. Dracula wants Lucy to become a vampire, and drink the blood of those around her. Van Helsing, in giving her transfusions, enables her to drink in their blood in order to prevent her from becoming a vampire. The three vampire women wanting to gang up on Jonathan and drain him of his strength. The three suitors join together to take turns sacrificing their own strength in order to supply Lucy with more when she's in need of it.

Dracula wants her to take, just as he and the vampire women do. In fact, almost everything he does to turn her involves depriving her of things: restful sleep, blood, eventually her mother. But in her friends, Lucy is surrounded by people who love her and give freely, and this saves her (at least temporarily). They all work together and love one another in a way deeply at odds with Dracula and other vampires' form of consumptive 'love'.

And so their vampiric actions of transferring blood between bodies are life-saving instead of life-taking. Jack and Van Helsing even remember a version which is all the more a mimic of vampiric body language and leans way into the vampire-as-disease metaphor, with the reference to the time Jack sucked "from [Van Helsing's] wound so swiftly the poison of the gangrene" - it's got the mouth on skin, the sucking, but it's taking away illness rather than infecting someone. It also fosters a long-standing dedication and love, which in turn lends itself to the saving of someone else. This too ties in to the way vampiric love isolates, while human love connects.

* Lucy, meanwhile, in fighting against her terrible dreams, often attempts to be awake at night and is unable to do so. A more nocturnal schedule would make her safer, since her sleeping state is where Dracula has the most influence over her.

[skeletonsloverockcandy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is satisfying :)))

[freuleinanna]

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

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

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

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

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

[peachesanmemes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 - Seward October 3rd - 9942 words

2 - Seward September 29th - 7206 words

3 - Jonathan October 3rd - 5944 words

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

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

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

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

[another-chaotic-bisexual-vampire]

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

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

[the-crooked-library]

On Horror, Queerness, Mirrors, and Dracula

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

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

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

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

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

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

@stripedshirtgay​

@bluberimufim​

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Dracula (1897 novel) thoughts?

I've read it once, but it was many years ago now, so not sure how much this still apply if I read it again today.

I liked it, I thought it was an excellent horror novel, and tellingly it was genre defining and one of the first of its kind. Dracula served as the inspiration for books, movies, and plays for over a century, but also because of that... there's things we have in modern fiction that just weren't there in Dracula.

In particular, I thought the first half starring Jonathon was far and away the best part. It's tense, terrifying, we have a great buildup of mystery with things like the terrified villagers, Count Dracula being the world's biggest creep, Jonathon's increasing desperation then escape attempts, the "WHAT THE FUCK" brides, and the whole thing is riveting.

Then we get to the second half which I'll call the Scooby Gang half. It still has some great stuff, such as Reinfeld being turned into a thrall, Lucy's ridiculous life that very quickly becomes her being a victim/bride of Dracula, Mina's slow wasting away and being much smarter than all the other characters but it doesn't mean shit, but we also get to suffer through Van Hellsing, Harker, and the gang being the world's most ridiculous detectives trying to figure out how the devil they're going to kill Dracula.

It's not bad, but that part does noticeably drag compared to earlier parts of the novel, and leads us to a death of Dracula that's a little... anticlimactic.

But it is a good novel and telling that it's been the inspiration for so many things.

[starling27]

Unconscious cerebration has finally done its work; a coherent aromantic reading of Dracula just came to me, fully formed, as I washed my face.

I was thinking about the Harkers, obviously, in the wake of October 3rd and seeing @see-arcane's meta about what it means to unconditionally love a proto-vampire circulating. I was thinking about the ways in which the Harkers' marriage is already unconventional, in so many of the same ways in which Jonathan's resolution about the "holiest love" is. They are, forever, "too" focused on their own happiness, over the expectations off their society. They married too close to each other in age, with little consideration for social climbing, with little consideration for gender norms, with Jonathan lying half-dead still recuperating from deep madness. They are prepared to make the unconventional work, if that's what it takes to be together.

But, you might say, "what has this to do with aromanticism? That all sounds deeply romantic to me!" And to that I say, does it, necessarily? I will admit, I am relying deeply on my own biases to make this call, but where so many romance stories squick me, the Harkers don't. I see their devotion and recognize it as something that can coexist with romance, but does not rely on it. I see them as, above anything else, above knowing each other or valuing each other or even loving each other, needing each other. And a relationship built around that core can grow for any number of reasons.

Fundamentally, Dracula is a predator. He preys on individuals as a means of preying on communities, and when he can manage it, on whole societies. We see, in the way he preys on Lucy, a commitment to undermining society by debasing the very ideal of an English marriage. Hell, as many of us have said, his initial placing of Jonathan in the roll of gothic heroine begins to debase the ideals of English gender roles. Dracula debases these things because he sees that England values them, and assumes that their destruction must be followed by demoralization and apathy towards his control.

But I believe Jonathan and Mina already see the artifice, certainly of the ideals of the "Englishman" and the "Englishwoman," and perhaps of marriage itself. These constructs are not values they hold, but tools they use to allow themselves to build a life together. And if the Count is going to break those tools, what's stopping them from stealing his tools and using them instead?

Society didn't have a place for the way Mina Murray and Jonathan Harker needed each other. This is conjecture, but I find it likely that many tried to use the ideal of the conventional marriage to attempt to separate them. They married each other in a hospital room to commit to needing each other anyway, and in that action gave their relationship propriety. Dracula doesn't want the Harkers together, and so used the threat of vampirism to try to weaken them. But how could that be a threat, when they are both still here?

[shadow-pixelle]

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

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

[iamnmbr3]

If anything I'd say that Mina's depression about being kept in the dark and left alone with her thoughts and unprocessed loss (accusing herself of dooming Lucy) is what creates a blind spot on her getting fed on and made her suspictable to Dracula's thrall, she attributed her symptoms like the dreams and weakness on her sadness, and she even calls herself "a stupid fool" for crying and for not appreciating Jonathan's care. Dracula pretty much took advantage of her vulnerability and the mens' blinding prejudice.

Absolutely. Prejudice and bias and the ways that they lead to harm are also major themes that are explored throughout the novel, which is really striking given when it was written, and something that I wish more critical analysis of the book touched on.

In the beginning, Jonathan disregards the warnings of the local people he meets, due to racial and cultural biases that cause him to view them as inferiors and to therefore dismiss their words and concerns. This puts him at risk from the Count. And it also puts others at risk since he continues to represent the Count's interests.

The warning signs with Mina are missed due to sexism on the part of the male characters which makes them disregard her changes in behavior. Furthermore, the men's decision to exclude Mina from their work puts both her and them at risk, weakens their efforts, and causes them all unhappiness in addition to also leading to her victimization.

Renfield's entirely cogent warnings about the Count and his desperate pleas to be either released or moved to a different facility are ignored and treated with callous condescension because he is viewed and treated differently due to the perception that he is mentally ill. This results in Mina's victimization continuing for longer - something that profoundly affects all the characters - and Renfield's death.

Later, in the newspaper article about Thomas Bilder, the wolf keeper at the zoo, Thomas describes the Count as having red eyes and details some of his unnatural behavior. Quite possibly, due to class bias neither he nor his account are treated very seriously in the article.

Throughout the novel we see characters express and act on prejudices and biases that would have been common and accepted at the time (and sadly still exist today). The amazing thing though is that the novel itself does not validate the characters' views and actions. Instead it highlights in a number of ways how much harm results from these attitudes, not just to the direct subject of the bias, but also to those around them, society, and even the holder of the prejudiced view.

[pisswizard420]

At least once a month i remember how gently lucy is treated in comparison to the other vampires in dracula. She is a parody of motherhood and the victorian ideal of women having moral purity of being the moral center of the home. Dracula is implied to be a sexual predator his wives are very much shown to be. But then theres lucy, who’s only crime was loving and being loved so much and so dearly. In a story about love at its core and also acknowlesging that leaving women out of eveeyrhing can and will lead to disaster of course lucy would be treated so gently, though. A woman in white who only longs, with that forced seductive urge of a vampire, for her husband.

[vickyvicarious]

"My Friend.--Welcome to the Carpathians. I am anxiously expecting you. Sleep well to-night. At three to-morrow the diligence will start for Bukovina; a place on it is kept for you. At the Borgo Pass my carriage will await you and will bring you to me. I trust that your journey from London has been a happy one, and that you will enjoy your stay in my beautiful land. Your friend, DRACULA.

Wow, what a welcoming and friendly letter! This Dracula guy seems like a good host, doesn't he?

...Except, no, of course not. I admit, in any other situation this would be the worst bad-faith reading of a relatively polite and friendly note. But knowing Dracula and the kind of games he likes to play, I feel like I can spot some unpleasant undertones. He's doing a couple things here immediately, in fact, which continue on throughout Jonathan's stay.

He's being overfamiliar, immediately overstepping a professional relationship for a more intimate one. He's being commanding, telling Jonathan what to do, even if under the guise of wishing him well. He's being possessive - maybe not quite the word? Here I don't mean it as in "you can't have him, he's mine" so much as it is arranging things for him and expecting Jonathan to fall in line and do what he wants. Jonathan is his new toy and will play along, will be manipulated into whatever Dracula wants him to do, even without direct instructions. Dracula has control of the situation as a whole, and Jonathan in particular. He is also being sarcastic, making little jokes to himself about how he knows the real situation here and Jonathan doesn't yet.

Also, significantly, he hasn't told Jonathan where he's going. And sure, he's arranged the travel so it's not a big issue. He'll still be able to get there. But he's going to be dependent on Dracula to do so, and he won't know the way out afterwards. More to come on this score when Dracula actually drives Jonathan to the castle.

[skeletonsloverockcandy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He doesn’t promise.

He won’t kill her.

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

[thebibi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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