< Dracula

Dracula/WMG


The Count is bisexual, or at least rather curious.

And just as his oh-so-corrupting manly wiles took in Lucy- he didn't exactly bother with the wiles with Mina- he's got a bit of a man-crush on Jonathan. Let's see- Very intent on keeping Harker in control. Even if it's for the sake of his delicious, delicious blood, keep in mind how modern interpretations of him feeding tend to go. Either overtly pleasurable and carnal or invasive and mind-rapey. (And if we're assuming the Englishman in Dracula's Guest is Harker too, or simply one of his predecessors, he's concerned enough personally to want to keep him safe, rather than simply sending away for another solicitor. And he does so by sending one of his big ol' wolves to keep him warm.) Declares Jonathan his and his alone when casting away the three Vampire Brides, and gets defensive when one of them knowingly taunts that he himself has never known love. Is incredibly irritated when Jonathan gets away, and takes it out on his virginal loved ones. And in the aftermath of his captivity, redolent with creepy themes of Stockholm syndrome and the Count's desire to be constantly in lordly control, apparently Jonathan's horror regarding what has transpired is enough to cause a nervous breakdown. How romantic. Sick and twisted, but romantic. More likely than him harboring a secret flame for Mina, anyway...

  • There is evidence that some of the Hungarian mythos that Bram Stoker drew on views a vampire that drinks the blood of someone from the same sex as being effectively homosexual. His defense of Jonathan thus becomes much like a jealous lover. Also, culturally, Dracula represents the mistrusted foreigner to Stoker's London; but he may also represent the mistrusted homosexual, or at the very least deviant.
    • Fairly ironic, considering Vlad Tspesh was so anti-homosexual that he had those who were convicted of sodomy impaled anally. Of course, that could just be overcompensating.
  • At least one live action adaptation has Dracula getting a little too excited about Jonathan cutting his finger.
  • Read the novel! The above sounds like the reaction Dracula has when Jonathan cuts himself shaving.
    • In Nosferatu and its remake the Count actually tries to lick Harker's finger, freaking him out to no end. The novel's Dracula is a bit more restrained.

Running with this, Dracula targeted Mina for Revenge by Proxy not because her friends were hunting him...

But because she married Jonathan.

Dracula was trying to get himself killed.

Dracula hired Harker's firm to arrange the purchase of a bunch of homes in London. He then keeps Harker imprisoned, confiscating his letters but letting him keep his diary. The diary chronicles everything that Harker learned from his first-hand experience with a powerful vampire. Once Harker learns everything that he can, Dracula lets him escape back to England so he can tell people about his awful experiences. Meanwhile, the Count deliberately infects and kills a very prominent socialite who is being courted by three people who just happen to have the resources that can destroy him. One of whom was the student of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, the world's foremost expert on vampires. Dracula himself hand-picked Quincy Morris, Dr. Seward and Lord Holmwood and gave them a motivation to hunt him down and kill him. With their direct experience in vampire hunting, they use their knowledge to hunt down and destroy every other vampire they can find. Dracula wanted to kill not only himself, but to destroy every other accursed vampire in the world.

Lucy's blood type is AB+.

AB+ is known as the "Universal Receiver", thus explaining how she could get transfusions from a bunch of different people with no ill effects. Amusingly (or disturbingly, if you're aware of the Unfortunate Implications of the trope's origins), this fits nicely with her temperment, especially as depicted in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

  • Lucy doesn't appear in League. You're thinking of Mina.
  • And the blood type personality theory didn't exist yet. Not to mention it has long been disproved.

Dracula survives the events of the novel.

Quincy drives a knife, not a wooden stake, through Dracula's heart. As he does so, the Count smiles. This could be interpreted as joy at being freed from the curse of vampirism... or glee as he turns to mist and escapes.

  • He also gets his head chopped off. That's... not easy to shrug off.
  • IIRC, he didn't get his head chopped off. He turned to mist as soon as the knife went into his heart.
  • The description isn't perfectly clear, but I read it, at least, that he was stabbed in the heart, beheaded or at least cut most of the way through the neck, hit the ground, and then underwent in a few seconds the decay he would have suffered over the years had he died when he was supposed to, ending up finally as bone dust.
  • We're talking about Dracula here. The fucker could survive a supernova to the face.
  • He also avoided having garlic placed in his mouth, which was necessary for Lucy. And, of course, Van Helsing implies that the way he became a vampire in the first place simply involved just refusing to die.
  • Seeing as how a member of Bram Stoker's family is releasing a sequel to Dracula set in the same continuity i'm guessing your right.
  • Again due to my obsessive study of vampirism and Dracula I found that apparently it is only possible to kill a vampire when the following criteria are met: The head must be severed, the heart must be pierced with a yew tree stake, the garlic must be placed in the mouth, the body and head must be burned, separately (sources vary on whether it has to be at a crossroads as well), and holy water must be sprinkled on the place where the remains are buried. Dracula did not suffer all of these criteria, therefore if he depends on the more traditional vampiremythos, he may well have survived.
    • If operating under the assumption that Stoker followed the rules of mythology rather than his own (of which there is no proof), it is then necessary to point out that the above is completely untrue, in the context of vampire mythos. Saying that the above criteria must all be met to destroy a vampire is inconsistent with the majority of vampire mythology. No doubt it works according to some legends, but hardly all. There are myriad different criteria for successfully destroying a vampire depending on the source. Iron and steel (also known as materials used to make knives!), for example, are also regarded as effective vampire kryptonite.
  • Fortunately, his son John will try to fini* gets whipped*
  • The novel Dracula, possessing as he does a large moustache, will move to America and adopt the pseudonym "The Master".
  • This is, in fact, Fred Saberhagen's take on the events in his own novel The Dracula Tapes -- Dracula (who can't really be killed by metal weapons in that story or its sequels, although they do hurt) deliberately sets up his 'death' to throw off his dogged pursuers by making sure they only manage to get to him just as the sun sets and his powers return, allowing him to feign death by turning into mist once their blades go through him. And in part because they're quite tired from the extended hunt themselves, it works.
    • P.N Elrod's Quincey Morris, Vampire uses this premise as well - unfortunately, Arthur was a little too obsessed with finding Quincey's "Corpse" for it to work out.
  • Stoker apparently did change the ending slightly to make it more ambiguous. (in one draft, his castle collapsed as he died. Yes, Castlevania has precedent!)

Dracula is Deader Than Dead because...

He is the product of Unbuilt Tropes. Regardless of what other vampire lore goes by, Stoker's vampires are destroyed by: cutting off their head, and removing the heart. We know this works because we see it work on Lucy. We know that whatever Jonathan and Quincey do to Dracula at the end works because he dissolves into dust and because Mina is no longer an Un-Dead in progress. All this proves is that stakes are not necessary for destroying the heart (knives work just as well). It all depends on the situation; using a hammer and stake was Van Helsing's method of choice for an immobile vampire lying in a coffin with no way of fighting back, but he arms the team with knives and guns for destroying Dracula probably in the heat of battle. (Van Helsing has clearly read his Zombie Survival Guide... actually, he probably wrote it.)

    • Thank you. Also, in a lot of Eastern folklore, beheading and/or cutting out the heart and/or impaling the vampire with cold iron works just fine. The stake thing is a recent, regional invention. In some places, you were expected to behead a vampire with a gravedigger's spade. In some places, red hot silver nails through the skull was the place to go. In some, you just buried them upside down. Different methods from different traditions people. We don't know which one Stoker was drawing on, but at the end of the novel Dracula and his influence on Mina, are gone. Ergo, he is Deader Than Dead.

Dracula is a Historical text disguised as fiction.

It's all in here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140602180105/http://draculawasframed.blogspot.com/

The two dark-haired, aquiline brides are Dracula's relatives.

Perhaps even very close relatives. The blonde one is either an imported lady-love, cameo Carmilla, or a projection of a sleepwalking Lucy.

  • And if you want to be very technical, we have no idea HOW they are related to Dracula or if they are related at all. I saw something that suggested that they may have been his daughters. but still speculation. in the novel the weren't referred to as "brides" just as "those three women" and things along those lines. The whole "Brides of Dracula" title came I believe from the Hammer Horror film of the same name of course the idea that they were his wives dates back to either the 1931 film or the Hamilton Dean stage production it was based on
  • I seem to recall Van Helsing referring to them as his "brides", but it was pretty obvious he meant more like "concubines". I do like the idea of them as his daughters though, very much-- doesn't that make him something of an Overprotective Dad with wanting them to get away from Harker, or the four of them more like a quasi-incestuous cannibal clan?
  • From the context Van Helsing's narration gave while watching them die, it's more likely that they were just random romanian peasant girl that Dracula picked up in a fit of loneliness... and just like their master, they couldn't let go of the evilness until someone killed them (the "look of peace" is also mentioned in this bit).
  • According to the Diaries of the Family Dracul trilogy by Jeanne Kalogridis, the blonde is Countess Elizabeth Bathory, one brunette is a distant descendant of Dracula's, and the other brunette is a simple peasant girl.

The three women in Dracula's Castle are...

His stylists. How else do you think he maintained that mustache? and general appearance later when Dracula moves to England Renfield takes the role. Dracula realizing he's incompetent recruits Lucy for the job. after Lucy's death he returns to Renfield briefly before he considers hiring Mina.

  • That also explains the mirror-shattering thing. Mirrors are foul baubles of man's vanity... and you get so much nicer results if you're not doing the job yourself. He's only watching out for Harker. (It is this troper's personal opinion that vampires live in groups in order to groom properly sans mirrors, so this works just fine.)

Lucy died from the transfusions (or would have, had she not been turned), she would have been perfectly fine (if extremely anemic) otherwise.

Dracula changed her because otherwise she would be Dead for Real, and in his opinion, Dead for Real is far worse than anything a person could possibly call a Fate Worse Than Death, because there is no Fate Worse Than Death to him. Had he just kept feeding, or changed to another source of blood and taking Lucy as some sort of wife, matters would have been arranged that she survive.

Some of the characters are Time Lords or Legacy Characters.

Ok ok i know what you're all thinking "Not another Time Lord theory" but I have backup here. First lets look at Dracula, TARDIS? either his castle or boxes of earth, it could also be speculated that they are all the same TARDIS and the cloaking unit isn't broken . Companions? the three women in his Castle. later Renfeild Lucy and Mina almost. Dr. Seward also has potential for this his TARDIS is either his medical bag or his asylum and companions either Renfeild Van Helsing or oneo f theother inmates. ofcorse the opposit could be true and Seward is the companion to Van Helsing etc etc. now for Regenerations this si where my alternative theory com es form the reason that each depiction of Dracula is so radicly different from the last and certainly from the original is that they are all A. Regenerations of said Time Lords or B. Legacy Characters and thus not the same people at all. please consider keeping this up or at the very least putting it into the Time Lord article instead of outright removal.

Gabriel Van Helsing is Professor Abraham Van Helsing's "dead" son.

In the book "Dracula," Abraham Van Helsing is an old professor who knows a bit about slaying monsters. He mentions that he once had a son who died, and doesn't go into much detail. In the movie "Van Helsing" we meet Gabriel Van Helsing, a professional monster slayer who looks about a generation younger than the professor, and who has amnesia. As for which one of the two actually killed Dracula, there's already debate as to wheather or not Abraham's gang succeeded in staking the Count at the end of the book. The Count may have returned, and Abe's son had to go finish the job.

Van Helsing never gave anyone a straight explanation of what was going on prior to staking Lucy because...

He assumed it was obvious. "What? You needed me to tell you that a pale, lethargic girl with neck wounds and bats flapping at the window means we're dealing with a vampire?" To quote the novel:

Dr. Seward: Tell me! I can hazard no opinion. I do not know what to think, and I have no data on which to found a conjecture.
Van Helsing: Do you mean to tell me, friend John, that you have no suspicion as to what poor Lucy died of, not after all the hints given, not only by events, but by me?

Vampires are a type of wizard and stay immortal by making Horcruxes.

Each bite victim that dies from anemia/exsanguination gives them the opportunity to make a new Horcrux, although it would be foolish to take advantage of each opportunity due to how unstable your soul becomes each time you split it. Hence, Dracula only made 50 even though he's doubtlessly killed far more people than that over the centuries. Van Helsing knows this, hence the Gotta Kill Em All mission to destroy Dracula's 50 boxes so they'll be able to destroy the man himself, although he didn't fully explain this to the team because either he didn't know how to put it in terms they would understand, or he didn't want to freak everybody out even more. Too bad Harry and friends didn't know that Holy objects destroy Horcruxes just by touching them.

Van Helsing -- and thus, the rest of the team -- didn't know that vampires' victims don't remember being bitten.

Sure, they have a lot of folklore and superstition to go on, but it's unreasonable to assume those told them everything accurately. They didn't suspect being bitten was the cause of Mina's paleness and lethargy until Renfield confessed because surely she would have told them if such a thing happened; they had no reason to believe she couldn't. All signs would have indicated that Lucy was first bitten while sleepwalking and thus wouldn't have remembered the incident due to non-supernatural causes.

Jonathan was right about vampirism spreading via the You Are Worth Hell-sentiment, and Dracula was intentionally invoking this.

He targets a woman in England who has 3 suitors willing to die for her, and when that doesn't work, he targets a woman who has 5 men willing to die for her. So he was Dangerously Genre Savvy enough to plan a Xanatos Gambit that hinged on The Power of Love. Unfortunately, it backfired because he underestimated Van Helsing and Mina; Van Helsing prevented Arthur from joining Lucy, and Mina resisted going full vamp and giving her husband or friends such an opportunity.

The whole novel is just Renfeild's psychotic delusion.

Stoker changed the original Collapsing Lair ending because...

There was no logical reason why Dracula's castle should collapse when he was killed Deader Than Dead. At first, it struck Stoker as a cool and dramatic note to end on, but closer reflection made him think, "Wait a minute, that's absurd. Who ever heard of a building collapsing just because its owner was destroyed? It makes no sense." And, indeed, it wouldn't make sense in the context of the story. Had he left in the original ending, the first Fridge Logic shared on the It Just Bugs Me page would have been, "Why did Dracula's castle collapse?"

Dracula became the man he is through a Deal with the Devil.

Most infamous rulers who are religious normally have signs of My God, What Have I Done? when nearing the end of their lives. Vlad Tepes may have had the same feelings. Of course, it was probably too late to confess his sins properly. In comes Satan, or one of his demons, elegantly disguising his demonic nature. He makes a bargain: for a price, Vlad may remain on this earthly plane and never suffer through Hell. In the end, the catch was that Vlad became undead, and thus becomes a vampire.

    This article is issued from Allthetropes. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.