Rater Reads Dracula

[hamishspence]

what do we know about Dracula? He identifies as a Székely; he is a count; he has estates in Transylvania pretty much as far from Wallachia as it gets (and he was buried there); and he alludes to himself, or at least his ancestors having been voivodes of Transylvania.

The historical Vlad was still born in Transylvania.

The novel Count:

Spoiler

Show

claims to have commanded nations, plural.


"Then he spoke to me mockingly: 'And so you, like the others, would play your brains against mine. You would help these men to hunt me and frustrate me in my designs! You know now, and they know in part already, and will know in full before long, what it is to cross my path. They should have kept their energies for use closer to home. Whilst they played wits against me -- against me who commanded nations, and intrigued for them, and fought for them, hundreds of years before they were born -- I was countermining them. ..."

The ancestor roughly based on Wilkinson's account of Vlad is not identical with the voivode Van Helsing mentions. Dracula describes the latter (a guy who conducted multiple raids across the Danube) someone from "the [former's] race" who inspired by the former's single campaign kept obsessively attacking the Turks south of the river "in a later age".

So, "latter guy" is still suggested by the count to be one of the family of the former one.

Room for

Spoiler

Show

"in the Dracula-verse, Tepes died, and masquerades as one of his descendants after his death and return as a vampire, seeking to succeed where he failed in life"

Except he also mentions Dracula's ancestry and ethnicity, which is different from Vlad's.

The speech made at dinner suggests Vlad is a Szekely:

Spoiler

Show

Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race; that we were proud; that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar, or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers, we drove them back? Is it strange that when Arpad and his legions swept through the Hungarian fatherland he found us here when he reached the frontier; that the Honfoglalas was completed there?

And when the Hungarian flood swept eastward, the Szekelys were claimed as kindred by the victorious Magyars, and to us for centuries was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkey-land; ay, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard, for, as the Turks say, 'water sleeps, and enemy is sleepless.' Who more gladly than we throughout the Four Nations received the 'bloody sword,' or at its warlike call flocked quicker to the standard of the King?

When was redeemed that great shame of my nation, the shame of Cassova, when the flags of the Wallach and the Magyar went down beneath the Crescent; who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!

and that "the Dracula" are a Szekely family:

Spoiler

Show

Again, when, after the battle of Mohacs, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders, for our spirit would not brook that we were not free. Ah, young sir, the Szekelys -- and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords -- can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach. The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace; and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told.

[Metastachydium]

The historical Vlad was still born in Transylvania.

So? He never was a voivode of Transylvania, nor was he a count or a Székely.

The novel Count:

Spoiler

Show

claims to have commanded nations, plural.


"Then he spoke to me mockingly: 'And so you, like the others, would play your brains against mine. You would help these men to hunt me and frustrate me in my designs! You know now, and they know in part already, and will know in full before long, what it is to cross my path. They should have kept their energies for use closer to home. Whilst they played wits against me -- against me who commanded nations, and intrigued for them, and fought for them, hundreds of years before they were born -- I was countermining them. ..."

So? The various wars against the Ottomans in the period were more often than not joint efforts. The novel itself makes mention of a HUngarian/Romanian mixed army when Dracula speaks about his ancestors, and one of the first things the novel establishes is that Transylvania is home to several nations.

So, "latter guy" is still suggested by the count to be one of the family of the former one.

Room for

Spoiler

Show

"in the Dracula-verse, Tepes died, and masquerades as one of his descendants after his death and return as a vampire, seeking to succeed where he failed in life"

I never said it is virtually impossible, only that this is a barely tenable headcanon.

The speech made at dinner suggests Vlad is a Szekely:

Spoiler

Show

Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race; that we were proud; that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar, or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers, we drove them back? Is it strange that when Arpad and his legions swept through the Hungarian fatherland he found us here when he reached the frontier; that the Honfoglalas was completed there?

And when the Hungarian flood swept eastward, the Szekelys were claimed as kindred by the victorious Magyars, and to us for centuries was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkey-land; ay, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard, for, as the Turks say, 'water sleeps, and enemy is sleepless.' Who more gladly than we throughout the Four Nations received the 'bloody sword,' or at its warlike call flocked quicker to the standard of the King?

When was redeemed that great shame of my nation, the shame of Cassova, when the flags of the Wallach and the Magyar went down beneath the Crescent; who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!

and that "the Dracula" are a Szekely family:

Spoiler

Show

Again, when, after the battle of Mohacs, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders, for our spirit would not brook that we were not free. Ah, young sir, the Szekelys -- and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords -- can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach. The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace; and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told.

Did you mean the guy loosely based on Vlad and his Székely family of counts from Transylvania?
Again, to take the Vlad headcanon seriously, one must ignore most of what we know about Dracula and also assume that Stoker was an ignorant moron who Dan Browned his novel, which is factually incorrect.

[hamishspence]

It seemed clear to me that "The Count" was claiming Vlad III (or at least, the in-universe version of him, with the "unworthy brother") to be "one of my own race" at the very minimum.

He isn't (in the speech) claiming to be Vlad III himself- but he is establishing a connection between himself and Vlad III.

[Metastachydium]

It seemed clear to me that "The Count" was claiming Vlad III (or at least, the in-universe version of him, with the "unworthy brother") to be "one of my own race" at the very minimum.

He isn't (in the speech) claiming to be Vlad III himself- but he is establishing a connection between himself and Vlad III.

He is establishing a connection between himself and someone roughly based on Vlad III, who, however, appears to have been a Székely aristocrat from Transylvania which Vlad III really wasn't.

[hamishspence]

Stoker may not have known much about the real Vlad - thus, using one existing source (Wilkinson), and fudging some of the details:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dracula

Spoiler

Show

Stoker came across the name Dracula in his reading on Romanian history, and chose this to replace the name (Count Wampyr) that he had originally intended to use for his villain. However, some Dracula scholars, led by Elizabeth Miller, have questioned the depth of this connection as early as 1998. They argue that Stoker in fact knew little of the historic Vlad III, Vlad the Impaler, and that he used only the name "Dracula" and some miscellaneous scraps of Romanian history.[54] Also, there are no comments about Vlad III in the author's working notes.[55]

While having a conversation with Jonathan Harker in Chapter 3, Dracula refers to his own background, and these speeches show elements which Stoker directly copied from An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: With Various Political Observations Relating to Them by William Wilkinson.[56] Stoker mentions the Voivode of the Dracula race who fought against the Turks after the defeat in the Battle of Kosovo, and was later betrayed by his brother, historical facts which unequivocally point to Vlad III, described as "Voïvode Dracula" by Wilkinson

though still avoiding making the protagonist outright the same person:

Spoiler

Show

The Count's intended identity is later commented by Professor Van Helsing, referring to a letter from his friend Arminius:

He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land. (Chapter 18, pp. 145)

This indeed encourages the reader to identify the Count with the Voivode Dracula first mentioned by him in Chapter 3, the one betrayed by his brother: Vlad III Dracula, betrayed by his brother Radu the Handsome, who had chosen the side of the Turks.

But as noted by the Dutch author Hans Corneel de Roos, in Chapter 25, Van Helsing and Mina drop this rudimentary connection to Vlad III and instead describe the Count's personal past as that of "that other of his race" who lived "in a later age". By smoothly exchanging Vlad III for a nameless double, Stoker avoided his main character being unambiguously linked to a historical person traceable in any history book.

[Metastachydium]

Stoker may not have known much about the real Vlad - thus, using one existing source (Wilkinson), and fudging some of the details:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dracula

Spoiler

Show

Stoker came across the name Dracula in his reading on Romanian history, and chose this to replace the name (Count Wampyr) that he had originally intended to use for his villain. However, some Dracula scholars, led by Elizabeth Miller, have questioned the depth of this connection as early as 1998. They argue that Stoker in fact knew little of the historic Vlad III, Vlad the Impaler, and that he used only the name "Dracula" and some miscellaneous scraps of Romanian history.[54] Also, there are no comments about Vlad III in the author's working notes.[55]

While having a conversation with Jonathan Harker in Chapter 3, Dracula refers to his own background, and these speeches show elements which Stoker directly copied from An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: With Various Political Observations Relating to Them by William Wilkinson.[56] Stoker mentions the Voivode of the Dracula race who fought against the Turks after the defeat in the Battle of Kosovo, and was later betrayed by his brother, historical facts which unequivocally point to Vlad III, described as "Voïvode Dracula" by Wilkinson

though still avoiding making the protagonist outright the same person:

Spoiler

Show

The Count's intended identity is later commented by Professor Van Helsing, referring to a letter from his friend Arminius:

He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land. (Chapter 18, pp. 145)

This indeed encourages the reader to identify the Count with the Voivode Dracula first mentioned by him in Chapter 3, the one betrayed by his brother: Vlad III Dracula, betrayed by his brother Radu the Handsome, who had chosen the side of the Turks.

But as noted by the Dutch author Hans Corneel de Roos, in Chapter 25, Van Helsing and Mina drop this rudimentary connection to Vlad III and instead describe the Count's personal past as that of "that other of his race" who lived "in a later age". By smoothly exchanging Vlad III for a nameless double, Stoker avoided his main character being unambiguously linked to a historical person traceable in any history book.

Vlad III is clearly an inspiration Stoker drew upon, but the differences far outweigh the similarities. I find it hard to accept that Stoker based Dracula on Vlad and then fudged a few details when, in fact, he only borrowed a slightly corrupted form of an unflattering nickname of his, and spent a grand total of half a sentence on incorporating a single episode of Vlad's life into the Count's (family) backstory, while
1. changing his ethnicity;
2. changing his homeland (even though Wallachia also had its share of scenic mountains and suspicious folks);
3. slapping on a title Vlad never held and
4. giving him lands real far from anywhere Vlad has ever been, in addition to
5. making the Draculas a dynasty when Wilkinson implies there isn't even such a thing as a Dracula family, arguing that this was basically a glorified nickname given to "to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning". (As in, Wilkinson mentions this in a footnote which has no reason for existing other than establishing that Vlad has nothing to do with another, earlier voivode of Wallachia who was also known as Dracula.)

[Clertar]

Has anyone in the forum read Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian? I enjoyed it very much. It's both a homage to Bram Stoker's Dracula novel (not so much the pop culture character) both thematically and stylistically, and a modern-day sequel of sorts.

[pendell]

Vlad III is clearly an inspiration Stoker drew upon, but the differences far outweigh the similarities. I find it hard to accept that Stoker based Dracula on Vlad and then fudged a few details when, in fact, he only borrowed a slightly corrupted form of an unflattering nickname of his, and spent a grand total of half a sentence on incorporating a single episode of Vlad's life into the Count's (family) backstory, while
1. changing his ethnicity;
2. changing his homeland (even though Wallachia also had its share of scenic mountains and suspicious folks);
3. slapping on a title Vlad never held and
4. giving him lands real far from anywhere Vlad has ever been, in addition to
5. making the Draculas a dynasty when Wilkinson implies there isn't even such a thing as a Dracula family, arguing that this was basically a glorified nickname given to "to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning". (As in, Wilkinson mentions this in a footnote which has no reason for existing other than establishing that Vlad has nothing to do with another, earlier voivode of Wallachia who was also known as Dracula.)

I would argue that Stoker culturally appropriated Dracula as opposed to basing Dracula on the historic character. He didn't do any in-depth research on any of his subjects. From what I've read here, he just picked up a few bits from a historical source and stitched them up into a barely-recognizable pastiche of the original. Thus, Bram Stoker's Dracula is related to the fictional brother-of-Vlad in the same way that Disney's Pocahantas version of John Smith is related to the Actual John Smith. Or perhaps Disney's Rasputin bears to the actual Rasputin A very superficial resemblance but almost no factual relationship. The most such a story can do is to encourage the audience to hit the books and learn the real story about the real characters, but anyone getting their history knowledge from such a source is going to be woefully misinformed.

Stoker was telling a story. Historical accuracy was apparently not his foremost concern -- although this seems odd, as he is very detail-oriented in many respects. I suppose this is a style of writing which gives the appearance of authenticity to a fantastic work. But it is only the illusion of historical research and precision, not the reality.

So, yes, I'm prepared to stay that Dracula in the Stoker-verse really is the brother of Vlad III -- with the caveat that both of these are fictional caricatures which bear only a superficial resemblance to the historical people.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Saintheart]

It's worth remembering that if Stoker had gone for historical accuracy and outright asserted that his protagonist Dracula was a blood (heh heh) relative of a real, living, breathing person*, especially one from a family still alive and identifiable from the references, there might have been a libel or defamation claim made against him ("You said my great uncle was a vampire, so you're implying I'm a descendant of vampires.") I can think of eminently good reasons why he would've steered well away from traceable, historical accuracy, coming from the same place as the All persons fictitious disclaimer. at the end of most films.

* The music video for Thriller, by the way, as well as An American Werewolf In London, says no living, dead, or undead person is depicted in them.

[Metastachydium]

I would argue that Stoker culturally appropriated Dracula as opposed to basing Dracula on the historic character. He didn't do any in-depth research on any of his subjects.

Quite on the contrary. As I detailed above (in a reply to Fyraltari), he did extensive research on on the region, its geography, history, folklore and ethnic composition.

From what I've read here, he just picked up a few bits from a historical source and stitched them up into a barely-recognizable pastiche of the original. Thus, Bram Stoker's Dracula is related to the fictional brother-of-Vlad in the same way that Disney's Pocahantas version of John Smith is related to the Actual John Smith. Or perhaps Disney's Rasputin bears to the actual Rasputin A very superficial resemblance but almost no factual relationship.

Not quite. I'm no expert on stuff by Disney, but I don't remember their Smith being a Spanish vizconde with no first name who sailed off to Mexico in order to establish a bridgehead there with his conquistador buddies. Nor do I think their Rasputin was a Czezch Jesuit Father Provincial with no first name advising the Austrian emperor.

The most such a story can do is to encourage the audience to hit the books and learn the real story about the real characters, but anyone getting their history knowledge from such a source is going to be woefully misinformed.

Stoker was telling a story. Historical accuracy was apparently not his foremost concern -- although this seems odd, as he is very detail-oriented in many respects. I suppose this is a style of writing which gives the appearance of authenticity to a fantastic work. But it is only the illusion of historical research and precision, not the reality.

I think you're missing the mark. It is an established fact (as in, we know this from his notes) that Dracula wasn't inspired by Vlad III. He was originally supposed to be a certain Count Wampyr from Styria (i.e. basically a heterosexual male Carmilla). Relocating him in Transylvania and changing his name were later developments (the exact order of which is unclear). Vlad's cruelty didn't figure into this either, since Stoker's only source on Vlad (Wilkinson) makes no mention of it.
Based on Stoker's notes, it would appear that he simply tacked a name the sound/meaning of which he liked on his vampire, while caring even less about the name's previous owner than Wilkinson did.

So, yes, I'm prepared to stay that Dracula in the Stoker-verse really is the brother of Vlad III -- with the caveat that both of these are fictional caricatures which bear only a superficial resemblance to the historical people.

Okay, that's a new one. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone suggest that the Count is actually Radu, so bonus points for that, I guess. That said, this reading is even more tenuous than the already very tenuous "Dracula is Vlad III".

It's worth remembering that if Stoker had gone for historical accuracy and outright asserted that his protagonist Dracula was a blood (heh heh) relative of a real, living, breathing person*, especially one from a family still alive and identifiable from the references, there might have been a libel or defamation claim made against him ("You said my great uncle was a vampire, so you're implying I'm a descendant of vampires.") I can think of eminently good reasons why he would've steered well away from traceable, historical accuracy, coming from the same place as the All persons fictitious disclaimer. at the end of most films.

That'sÂ… A weird one. Generally, when "all persons are fictitious" the "fictitious" persons based on real people remain recognizable, but at the very least their name is altered. In this case, all that remains is the name and pretty much everything else is discarded, to the point that basically not even a superficial similarity with the historical figure whose name is borrowed remains.

[Rater202]

Regarding whether this Dracula is meant to be the historical impaler... I mean, his description doesn't match any depiction of Tepes I've seen.

[Rater202]

I think that I shall be making a habit of, once I settle down to do a chapter, doing one or two entries at a time and picking up the next day until I hae completed the chapter, because some of these entries are long enough to be chapters in their own right.

Regardless, chapter 3

---

The first entry of the chapter is undated, presumably its intended to be an extension of the last entry as it picks up immediately after: Harker panics upon realizing that he's effectively a prisoner in the Count's home and runs around peering out of every window and trying every door. This is honestly a rational response. Most people would have maybe tried to find a way to escape upon realizing that there were no servants in the big fancy castle.

After some time, he calms down and start thinking more logically about it but can't come up with a solution. He does resolve that asking the count is a bad idea since the Count is the one that imprisoned him.

Upon the count returning home, Harker sees him making up the bed and setting the table and takes this as confirmation that there are no servants... And from there concludes that the Count was most likely also the driver who brought him to the castle and is terrified by the implications of his seeming ability to tame the wolves. He then wonders just why everyone seemed so concerned for his safety that he was gifted the crucifix and notes how strange it is that something he was brought up to disavow and treat as borderline idolatry was in fact becoming something of a comfort.

...Yeah it's comforting. It stopped you from getting your throat torn out my dude. Harker may be overthinking things.

The entry ends there.

The next entry is undated, but is labeled "midnight." Harker engaged Dracula in a discussion of Transylvanian history, which excites the count. He describes each account as if he had been there, but claims that it's because the pride of his house and name are the pride of himself. He is described as speaking in the Royal We when discussing the history and spending the whole time walking about the room and subconsciously manipulating objects throughout the room and pulling on his mustache...

...Okay, honestly, Dracula here seems to be being described in a way that's "eccentric" if you're rich and "ill" if you're poor. You know, what know a days we would describe as some kind of neurodiversity but in Stoker's time would have just been the quirks of the wealthy or the infirmities of the peasantry.

Could be my own bias making me see things that aren't there, but... The Count is described in a manner that I find relatable in that paragraph.

Anyway, after that set up we get one of the Count's stories in detail: In short, the Szekelys in general and Dracula's bloodline in particular claim descent from a variety of warrior people, conquerers, and witches from across Europe and Asia. Dracula himself explicitly claims blood descent from Atilla the Hun, and there are what I take were meant as allusions to Vlad Tepes. Dracula also alludes to an Icelandic tribe that were granted strength by "Thor and Wodin"

Dracula is a monster, but he clearly takes a lot of pride in his pre-vampire heritage and I can respect that...

...I kind of get the impression that Stoker was going for Dracula being a likable villain, despite him being a literal Hellspawn monster. I'm starting to see why so many adaptions take a sympathetic view of him or reimagine him as some kind of cool/sexy/other attractive character-type villain.

Of course, he doesn't stop there, he goes on to essentially say "peasants need a king" which is... Less relatable. I think everybody has a moment of "everyone but me is stupid, the world would be better if I was in charge" bt I think it's expected that we all grow out of it by the time we're Dracula's apparent age, let alone how old he actually is.

The entry concludes with Harker comparing his journal to the Arabian Nights. And, honestly, I can see a vague allusion. Harker is the guest of a dangerous monarch and is only alive becuase Harker keeps himself interesting/useful.

the next entry is long as hell and here's a lot more to go in the chapter so I'll be finishing later.

[Fyraltari]

Of course, he doesn't stop there, he goes on to essentially say "peasants need a king" which is... Less relatable. I think everybody has a moment of "everyone but me is stupid, the world would be better if I was in charge" bt I think it's expected that we all grow out of it by the time we're Dracula's apparent age, let alone how old he actually is.

Well, discussion of whether he's supposed to be a real historical figure or not, I think we can all agree that the Count is supposed to be at least a couple hundred years old, and so from a time where "the peasants need a king" sentiment was not just much more popular than it is today (and it still has some popularity today) but was taken as a self-evident truth. Especially among nobility.

[Peelee]

Dracula is a monster, but he clearly takes a lot of pride in his pre-vampire heritage and I can respect that...

...I kind of get the impression that Stoker was going for Dracula being a likable villain, despite him being a literal Hellspawn monster.

This is definitely modern reading into illusory subtext. Dracula is basically justifying why he has the right to lord over the peasants, other than his being a vampire - he comes from "good stock", as they might otherwise have described at the time.

[ereinion]

Well, discussion of whether he's supposed to be a real historical figure or not, I think we can all agree that the Count is supposed to be at least a couple hundred years old, and so from a time where "the peasants need a king" sentiment was not just much more popular than it is today (and it still has some popularity today) but was taken as a self-evident truth. Especially among nobility.

You'd be amazed how many even today will object to removing the bourgeoisie from power and create a free society for all citizens >_>

[Fyraltari]

You'd be amazed how many even today will object to removing the bourgeoisie from power and create a free society for all citizens >_>

I assure you, I would not. And I shall say no more on the topic.

[Rater202]

This is definitely modern reading into illusory subtext. Dracula is basically justifying why he has the right to lord over the peasants, other than his being a vampire - he comes from "good stock", as they might otherwise have described at the time.

I noted that.

It's not just this scene though, but the general way he's acted since Harker arrived at the Castle.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I think everybody has a moment of "everyone but me is stupid, the world would be better if I was in charge" bt I think it's expected that we all grow out of it by the time we're Dracula's apparent age, let alone how old he actually is.

I think you’re going to be disappointed there; I’ve had co-workers like that.

[Keltest]

I think you’re going to be disappointed there; I’ve had co-workers like that.

Everyone makes that mistake but me.

[pendell]

It seems that Dracula has a single fault from which all his other faults spring, and that is Pride. This pride is what allows him to think he is better than everyone else, and this pride is what enables him to feed on all those he considers his inferiors. This ties in neatly with Tolkien's Melkor, who also has origins in nineteenth century thought which both stories borrowed heavily from. The idea of a rebellious angel choosing to reign in Angband rather than serve in Valinor. It makes sense, therefore, that 'little Morgoths' would be like him in spirit and follow him down that same dark path to ruin.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Rater202]

Okay, gonna try and finish the chapter Bit overdue.

The next entry, dated may 12th, opens with Harker giving statements of facts backed up by books and such... Or rather, that's what he says. In actuality, much of the entry seems to be him answering legal questions for Dracula, regarding what he's permitted to do when running his various affairs while in London.

The count seems a touch a control freak.

Later he bids that Harker write to his employer and "any others" and tell them that he shall be staying another month. The Count will accept no refusal and Harker thinks "well, my employer said to consul Dracula and it's his interest on the line, not mine. My safety is of no matter compared to my employer's interest, so I have no choice but to stay."

My god, I thought work culture in modern America was toxic. Do we ever meet Peter Hawkins? Is he worth this kind of loyalty?

The count also says something that leads Harker to think that his outgoing mail will be read, so Harker decides to write formal letters now and send letters in secret to his employer and to Mina—and that Mina's will be written with shorthand which the count might not be able to parse.

Harker tries to spy o some of the Con's own mail, but only gets a chance to see where they are addressed.

The entry ends with the Count warning Harker not to sleep in any other part of the castle becuase the old history might give him bad dreams...

Yeah.

The next entry is undated, but says "later."

Harker has taken to sleeping with the Crucifix affixed to the head of his bed. He describes an incident where he goes to a pace where he can look out onto the grounds becuase it makes him feel less trapped, only for his terror to get the best of him... and then sees the count crawling out his window and then face down the side of the castle and wonders just what manner of creature he is.

I find it notable ha this is compared to a lizard scaling a cliff and not say a spider or some time of insect. Mayhaps reptiles are more abhorent than bugs in Stoker's opinion?

And the last ntry of the chapter probably deserves an in-depth response so... hopefully it won't take me too long to get back to it.

[Grim Portent]

I find it notable ha this is compared to a lizard scaling a cliff and not say a spider or some time of insect. Mayhaps reptiles are more abhorent than bugs in Stoker's opinion?

Might have been to do with Dracula having four limbs, the mental imagery of him moving like a lizard would still be quite creepy, especially at the time, and more easily imagined to the audience than him moving like a bug.

Perhaps a touch of somewhat literal imagery. From a simple mechanical standpoint he does still have human limbs after all, it's not as if his limbs extend up and out then back down like many invertebrates as he scuttles about like a creepypasta, he crawls in a manner not entirely out of the norm for a human save for the verticality and ease involved.


Something I think is relevant to reading older horror is that the visual ideas are often somewhat passe by modern standards. The intended visual reference here feels like a gecko or skink, neither of which moves in a fashion most people would consider creepy these days. Mind you, I have lived in places with house geckos before and some people found them creepy much like some people find spiders creepy, so I suppose the imagery might not be all that dated, just particular to a certain type of personality.

[factotum]

TBH the way the main character in the game "Jedi: Fallen Order" climbs when he's obtained his super-fast climbing skill has something unsettling about it--go and look at Youtube videos of people playing that game and you'll see what I mean. Wouldn't be surprised if it's exactly that sort of rapid scuttling look that Bram was going for here.

[Metastachydium]

Do we ever meet Peter Hawkins? Is he worth this kind of loyalty?

We kind of do and he kind of does, if that makes you feel better about Harker's attitude.

Spoiler: Not really a huge spoiler or anything, but still

Show

It is explained later that he's (and was for most of his life) something of a father figure to Harker (and Mina too, in a way). Also, shortly after the Harkers' return to Exeter, he makes Jonathan a partner in his firm and he leaves all his earthly belongings to Jonathan and Mina in his will (he has no children of his own). He's a nice guy.

[Rater202]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can continue this project.

The book, at least through the medium through which I've been accessing it, is just... Failing to keep my attention.

I tried but, honestly, it just feels like a slog.

Maybe I'll try again later if I get access to a different means of accessing the text, but...

I'm sorry I wasted people's time.

[Khedrac]

That's fine - this board is supposed to be fun and about fun things - if you are not enjoying it do somethign you will enjoy!

[Mystic Muse]

You don't owe us anything Rater, especially not trudging through something you aren't enjoying.

[Metastachydium]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can continue this project.

The book, at least through the medium through which I've been accessing it, is just... Failing to keep my attention.

I tried but, honestly, it just feels like a slog.

Maybe I'll try again later if I get access to a different means of accessing the text, but...

I'm sorry I wasted people's time.

May that be your worst crime against humanity!

[Clertar]

Maybe the last thing you feel like is more Dracula. I for one never cared much for Bram Stoker's novel, but I really enjoyed Elisabeth Kostova's The Historian. I read it again after some years, and typing this now I feel like picking it up again. It's a sequel, deconstruction and ultimately a homage to the original novel, with just the right ingredients for me.

Granted, I'm a sucker for academic-adjacent supernatural thrillers (stuff like The ninth Gate, or some Lovecraftian material), and reading about globe-trotting vampire-hunting scholars is just my thing.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I'm sorry I wasted people's time.

Don't be - these things are a huge amount of effort, and we can quite understand that sometimes it just doesn't work.

It was good while it lasted, and it was at least worth a try.