Because I am too lazy to write a real review (yet), of Dracula, My Love

There seems to be a growing number of Dracula adaptations that seek to portray the Count as the misunderstood hero and to offer explanations for all his villainy, as recounted in Bram Stoker’s novel. Rather than approve or disapprove of this conceit, I’d like to list out some of the items under discussion and assess the validity of each. [Spoilers below.]

  • Dracula did not kill Lucy, Van Helsing did: It’s hard to ignore modern medical fact; transfusing blood in the 19th century was a dangerous operation–transfusing from four different donors basically guaranteed death of the patient. Of course neither Van Helsing nor Stoker knew that at the time. However to expunge Dracula of all culpability here is a little far-fetched as the reason for each transfusion is that she kept losing blood.
  • Dracula did not kill the crew of the Demeter: This makes sense to some degree. It would draw too much attention to him, certainly. We know he wouldn’t need to feed that much, since he harms no one aboard the Czarina Catherine.
  • Dracula didn’t eat any babies: Some good points are made here, too. We never see what is in the bag Dracula throws to the three vampire women. We also have no idea what the woman outside the castle is screaming. Harker can only be guessing at her words.
  • Dracula was a fine host to Harker: This is somewhat hard to believe unless Harker is a completely unreliable narrator, in which case you might as well stop reading and just pick up Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt’s travesty instead.
Feel free to share your own thoughts in the comments below.
Further reading (books with this concept):

Advertisements