Maybe, but I think you're leaving out a lot. Mina is largely how they defeat Dracula too, and I think the fascination with the lady turning into a vampire is where a lot of people get the distortions from. I mean they hypnotize her and use her to read his mind among other things. Some fanfictions make her stay a vampire seemingly solely out of a Twilight/Anne Rice-esque desire to let her keep her powers in exchange for what she went through and/or out of a horror toward the powers she developed herself, which is where I think a lot of the really negative depictions come from.
And I mean in Dracula it is depicted that vampires are objectively unholy, unlike in Twilight where they seem to be a mutant race who sparkles but doesn't really have anything to do with good vs. evil other than needing to procure blood very carefully and not let their powers get to their heads, or in Anne Rice where they are descended from Set and some of them seem to be struggling to be good which developed into the game Vampire: the Masquerade. So I think there's very much a common interpretation of, if Mina didn't have some element of evil, she wouldn't be turning into a vampire, and they wouldn't be hypnotizing her and using her that way. But a lot of the more sensationalistic interpretations are definitely going way beyond what would ever be reasonable, probably just because people get so pulled into the horror element of the fact these people have to use the semi-vampire to beat the vampire and it's a woman who basically has most of the power as well. I mean in terms of seeing Dracula as violating her, I think lots of people have a sense of horror in that they see it almost as her having the likelihood to violate the vampire hunters. But even though I haven't finished the book yet, I find this post convenient because I haven't finished it yet (and I didn't start it because of you either) I think it does her dirty to basically portray her as a whore or whatever regardless of how malicious she might actually be intended to be. I mean, it might be sort of like Tolkien in a way, every story is about a fall. But I doubt Bram Stoker is an uncomplicated chivalric story either even if those elements are probably present and overlooked.
This post by Esoterik Espionage is probably too far in the other direction, I don't think I believe Bram Stoker was just some evil Illuminati guy or something either based on what I know about him and his books, but there are definitely sort of "occult" elements as well. I mean, it's literally a horror book about vampires and magic, but also a lot of it sounds like it was based on real lore.
Good point, regarding Mina being key to defeating Dracula, though that's what I implied when I said she was pretty gung-ho for defeating Drac.
As to the uncomplicated chivalric side that is what Stoker was thinking, with regards to Mina she's really idealised in the story and I guess my own fondness for her has left me unable to read any other Vampire novel due to being frustrated with how they tend to portray the Vampire-Victim relationship.
Only the video game Suikoden has ever dealt with the topic with sensitivity and respect, and the appropriate amount of horror interestingly enough.
Thanks for being a voice of (good) reason in this essay. It holds true to the original rather than the rubbish of so-called academics. A better term is epidemics.
I first read it as a condensed book when I was 8, later reading the unabridged version when my brother gave it to me for my 14th birthday. It's the book that first inspired me to keep a diary (since that's how most of it is written) and maybe it influenced me to write novels later for that reason.
I didn't have the time before to add this bit: I remember that version of Dracula with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in its release. Maybe if it had been closer to the original story, I would have stayed awake. And that's saying something because I used to have a crush on Ryder in those days.
It can help reconnect you with a younger self when read years later. When I left a toxic relationship in 2008, I found it while packing things in boxes for the move. Seeing how I wrote about things and saw the world made me realise that my younger self would have been scratching his head at why I let myself get into such a sorry situation. In fact, that sixteen-year-old would have kicked my arse for feeling sorry for myself and for wallowing in regret. I guess everything we do serves a purpose to serve us... eventually! :)
I'll think on it, in a way the Chivalry essays and philosophy stuff I write is a journal of sorts, and me also trying to work my way through tough times I'm dealing with right now.
I have to admit I'm not fond of vampire books in general. Mina is a great character and she isn't a Mary Sue. I think people have forgotten how powerful a character like this can be. I can only hope people start to remember
Fully concur, I think they also forgot the strength of Jonathan, these two were two of the greatest characters ever written. It is a shame they've forgotten, so that it is up to writers such as yourself and myself to remind them.
The 1979 remake gets a lot wrong and is not good overall, but they make an interesting (and probably unintentional) twist on the love story angle. Lucy (they switched Mina and Lucy because why not) is in love with Dracula, but Dracula is clearly evil, it’s obvious that her love will turn her into a monster. I’ll also give the 1979 version points for containing one of the few truly frightening scenes that I’ve ever watched.
Not sure I've seen that one, which was it? And if they kept Mina faithful to the book and Jonathan also I'm pretty satisfied then and will need to see it.
The one with Frank Langella. They definitely did not keep Mina faithful to the book and went as far as swapping the names of the female characters. It’s only redeeming feature is that it does a good job making Dracula into a villain (again, I’m not sure this was intentional because I think they were going for antihero).
Oh I see, I do recommend the Dracula novel, it is such a lovely book. And if you have already read it, mostly I'm critiquing the trend that movies and adaptations have taken. I love Mina, and regard her as my favourite fictional female character.
Maybe, but I think you're leaving out a lot. Mina is largely how they defeat Dracula too, and I think the fascination with the lady turning into a vampire is where a lot of people get the distortions from. I mean they hypnotize her and use her to read his mind among other things. Some fanfictions make her stay a vampire seemingly solely out of a Twilight/Anne Rice-esque desire to let her keep her powers in exchange for what she went through and/or out of a horror toward the powers she developed herself, which is where I think a lot of the really negative depictions come from.
And I mean in Dracula it is depicted that vampires are objectively unholy, unlike in Twilight where they seem to be a mutant race who sparkles but doesn't really have anything to do with good vs. evil other than needing to procure blood very carefully and not let their powers get to their heads, or in Anne Rice where they are descended from Set and some of them seem to be struggling to be good which developed into the game Vampire: the Masquerade. So I think there's very much a common interpretation of, if Mina didn't have some element of evil, she wouldn't be turning into a vampire, and they wouldn't be hypnotizing her and using her that way. But a lot of the more sensationalistic interpretations are definitely going way beyond what would ever be reasonable, probably just because people get so pulled into the horror element of the fact these people have to use the semi-vampire to beat the vampire and it's a woman who basically has most of the power as well. I mean in terms of seeing Dracula as violating her, I think lots of people have a sense of horror in that they see it almost as her having the likelihood to violate the vampire hunters. But even though I haven't finished the book yet, I find this post convenient because I haven't finished it yet (and I didn't start it because of you either) I think it does her dirty to basically portray her as a whore or whatever regardless of how malicious she might actually be intended to be. I mean, it might be sort of like Tolkien in a way, every story is about a fall. But I doubt Bram Stoker is an uncomplicated chivalric story either even if those elements are probably present and overlooked.
This post by Esoterik Espionage is probably too far in the other direction, I don't think I believe Bram Stoker was just some evil Illuminati guy or something either based on what I know about him and his books, but there are definitely sort of "occult" elements as well. I mean, it's literally a horror book about vampires and magic, but also a lot of it sounds like it was based on real lore.
https://esoterikespionage.substack.com/p/the-conspiracy-can-of-wyrms-part
Good point, regarding Mina being key to defeating Dracula, though that's what I implied when I said she was pretty gung-ho for defeating Drac.
As to the uncomplicated chivalric side that is what Stoker was thinking, with regards to Mina she's really idealised in the story and I guess my own fondness for her has left me unable to read any other Vampire novel due to being frustrated with how they tend to portray the Vampire-Victim relationship.
Only the video game Suikoden has ever dealt with the topic with sensitivity and respect, and the appropriate amount of horror interestingly enough.
Thanks for being a voice of (good) reason in this essay. It holds true to the original rather than the rubbish of so-called academics. A better term is epidemics.
Thanks and agreed, they are an intellectual epidemic, and this essay came from my heart as I've loved Mina as a character since I was 11 years old.
I first read it as a condensed book when I was 8, later reading the unabridged version when my brother gave it to me for my 14th birthday. It's the book that first inspired me to keep a diary (since that's how most of it is written) and maybe it influenced me to write novels later for that reason.
I didn't have the time before to add this bit: I remember that version of Dracula with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in its release. Maybe if it had been closer to the original story, I would have stayed awake. And that's saying something because I used to have a crush on Ryder in those days.
Hahahaha to how boring that adaptation was.
That said, interesting that it inspired you to write and to keep a diary.
I recommend keeping a diary.
It can help reconnect you with a younger self when read years later. When I left a toxic relationship in 2008, I found it while packing things in boxes for the move. Seeing how I wrote about things and saw the world made me realise that my younger self would have been scratching his head at why I let myself get into such a sorry situation. In fact, that sixteen-year-old would have kicked my arse for feeling sorry for myself and for wallowing in regret. I guess everything we do serves a purpose to serve us... eventually! :)
I'll think on it, in a way the Chivalry essays and philosophy stuff I write is a journal of sorts, and me also trying to work my way through tough times I'm dealing with right now.
I have to admit I'm not fond of vampire books in general. Mina is a great character and she isn't a Mary Sue. I think people have forgotten how powerful a character like this can be. I can only hope people start to remember
Fully concur, I think they also forgot the strength of Jonathan, these two were two of the greatest characters ever written. It is a shame they've forgotten, so that it is up to writers such as yourself and myself to remind them.
The 1979 remake gets a lot wrong and is not good overall, but they make an interesting (and probably unintentional) twist on the love story angle. Lucy (they switched Mina and Lucy because why not) is in love with Dracula, but Dracula is clearly evil, it’s obvious that her love will turn her into a monster. I’ll also give the 1979 version points for containing one of the few truly frightening scenes that I’ve ever watched.
Not sure I've seen that one, which was it? And if they kept Mina faithful to the book and Jonathan also I'm pretty satisfied then and will need to see it.
The one with Frank Langella. They definitely did not keep Mina faithful to the book and went as far as swapping the names of the female characters. It’s only redeeming feature is that it does a good job making Dracula into a villain (again, I’m not sure this was intentional because I think they were going for antihero).
Ah okay, ugh if it was unintentional but at least he's portrayed as mostly villainous and I think I did see it.
I didn't know any of this. Fascinating.
Oh I see, I do recommend the Dracula novel, it is such a lovely book. And if you have already read it, mostly I'm critiquing the trend that movies and adaptations have taken. I love Mina, and regard her as my favourite fictional female character.