dhampyresa (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dhampyresa) wrote2020-08-27 12:30 am
dhampyresa) wrote2020-08-27 12:30 am
Entry tags:
Do it for the vampires
Earlier today I was listening to a podcast about Dracula* and it reminded me that I never talked about the three things I think are really important about Dracula and yet are left out of almost all adaptations.
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
(0) MINA MVP!
1. BRAM STOKER WAS IRISH. I've been called a pedant for pointing this out before, but I genuinely think the fact that Stoker was Irish is extremely relevant to Dracula. Here is a man from an island deeply traumatised by colonialism, a man who supported Irish self-goverment (specifically home rule), who writes a novel about an invading force from a larger landmass actively trying to cooerce the locals into assimilating through acts of violence. I'm not saying it's necessarily deliberate subtext, but I think removing this subtext changed the text from an anti-imperialism text into an anti-immigration one. And I'm not a fan.
2. Bram Stoker was very probably gay/bi/queer and/or in love with Henry Irving. The subtext between Jonathan and Dracula is barely even sub:
(Chapter 3, Jonathan Harker's Journal, Later: The morning of 16 May.)
To pick one example.
And yet. AND YET. Whenever adaptations add a love story it's Dracula/Mina and not Dracula/Jonathan.Also somehow often reincarnation which has no basis in the book Francis
3. It's a technothriller. It doesn't feel like a technothriller nowadays, because the "thriller" part of "whaaaaaaaat is happen" of people reading the book without knowing Drac is a vampire is not a thing anymore. The "techno" part doesn't read as "techno" because the cutting edge technology of 1897 is extremely dated. Typewriters are old news and a massive step back from computers, not an improvement over the pen.
(Chapter 26, Mina Harker's Journal, 30 October evening)
Blood transfusions are no longer several years out from figuring out blood groups are a thing. Yes. Dracula predates blood groups!
(4) Renfield did nothing wrong, fuck you. Renfield sacrificed himself to save Mina because she was the only person nice to him. He helps Dracula to get free from the asylum. Dr Stewart explictly wants to dissect him! The British Imperial "mental health system" was the real villain all along!
(5) Jonathan Harker gives good cooking advice. Robber steak is now a staple in my kitchen.
(Chapter 1, Jonathan Harker's Journal, 5 May)
*Dracula ou les Dents du désir which was quite good and interesting although it did contain the boiling hot take of "protestants write vampires more than catholics because their church does not provide enough blood and drama". I really want to see the research on that, no lie.
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
(0) MINA MVP!
1. BRAM STOKER WAS IRISH. I've been called a pedant for pointing this out before, but I genuinely think the fact that Stoker was Irish is extremely relevant to Dracula. Here is a man from an island deeply traumatised by colonialism, a man who supported Irish self-goverment (specifically home rule), who writes a novel about an invading force from a larger landmass actively trying to cooerce the locals into assimilating through acts of violence. I'm not saying it's necessarily deliberate subtext, but I think removing this subtext changed the text from an anti-imperialism text into an anti-immigration one. And I'm not a fan.
2. Bram Stoker was very probably gay/bi/queer and/or in love with Henry Irving. The subtext between Jonathan and Dracula is barely even sub:
"How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you'll have to deal with me."
The fair girl, with a laugh of ribald coquetry, turned to answer [Dracula]. "You yourself never loved. You never love!" On this the other women joined, and such a mirthless, hard, soulless laughter rang through the room that it almost made me faint to hear. It seemed like the pleasure of fiends.
Then the Count turned, after looking at my face attentively, and said in a soft whisper, "Yes, I too can love."
(Chapter 3, Jonathan Harker's Journal, Later: The morning of 16 May.)
To pick one example.
And yet. AND YET. Whenever adaptations add a love story it's Dracula/Mina and not Dracula/Jonathan.
3. It's a technothriller. It doesn't feel like a technothriller nowadays, because the "thriller" part of "whaaaaaaaat is happen" of people reading the book without knowing Drac is a vampire is not a thing anymore. The "techno" part doesn't read as "techno" because the cutting edge technology of 1897 is extremely dated. Typewriters are old news and a massive step back from computers, not an improvement over the pen.
I feel so grateful to the man who invented the "Traveller's" typewriter, and to Mr. Morris for getting this one for me. I should have felt quite astray doing the work if I had to write with a pen...
(Chapter 26, Mina Harker's Journal, 30 October evening)
Blood transfusions are no longer several years out from figuring out blood groups are a thing. Yes. Dracula predates blood groups!
(4) Renfield did nothing wrong, fuck you. Renfield sacrificed himself to save Mina because she was the only person nice to him. He helps Dracula to get free from the asylum. Dr Stewart explictly wants to dissect him! The British Imperial "mental health system" was the real villain all along!
(5) Jonathan Harker gives good cooking advice. Robber steak is now a staple in my kitchen.
I dined on what they called "robber steak"--bits of bacon, onion, and beef, seasoned with red pepper, and strung on sticks, and roasted over the fire, in simple style of the London cat's meat!
(Chapter 1, Jonathan Harker's Journal, 5 May)
*Dracula ou les Dents du désir which was quite good and interesting although it did contain the boiling hot take of "protestants write vampires more than catholics because their church does not provide enough blood and drama". I really want to see the research on that, no lie.