So, I’ve just recently read Dracula and am a bit confused on what Stoker was trying to say. The main reason being I feel like whenever I came up with an interpretation, there’s something in the text that would contradict it (like saying Dracula was a representation of new ideas that the British detested at the time… except for the fact that Van Helsing and Co. also displayed traits of those those ideas as well). So, naturally, I just had to go on Reddit to post my interpretation and to obtain some other opinions:
I knew a big idea of the novel was good vs evil (even more specifically, purity vs. sin). However, I couldn’t exactly tell what he was saying was evil and what was good. At one point, like I said earlier, I felt Stoker was saying Dracula was a representation of the ideas that the British were rejecting at the time (sexuality, immigration, change in general), whilst also being a representation of the conservative British. I felt like he was basically saying the act of vampirism was a metaphor to what the conservative thought they’d “turn into” if they accepted these ideas (Lucy, containing a view of traditional marriage and home life, turns into a vampire (or gives into these new ideas) and dies. Then there’s Mina, who’s described as a “new woman”, also gets bitten, but survives). I thought the good guys going after Dracula was perhaps representation of trying to get rid of the stigma that these ideas were bad. However, when Mina got bit, she kept saying she was “unclean”. And when J. Harker and Van Helsing were being tempted by Dracula’s brides, they felt guilt / were disgusted when they snapped out of it (and the fact choice words by Stoker also constantly portrayed a repulsed feeling of the whole situation in general). That’s when I got confused. And if Dracula was supposed to represent those ideas, what were the good guys supposed to represent since, again, they already exhibited traits of rejecting the status quo (independence when it comes to Mina, and vulnerability with our male cast, not to mention the usage of modern tech)? The only difference is that these traits weren’t portrayed in a shameful or in a reprehensible light. So maybe they were also supposed to represent these new ideas, but in the view of the liberal British?
I really don’t know. At some point, I also thought it could be a satire of British society and how ridiculous it was (in Stoker’s view). Again, in this view, Dracula would be the representation of these new ideas, minus also being the representation of the conservative British. This could explain the repulsion when it came to being bitten, or of Dracula himself (or vampirism in general). Although, I don’t know how the good guys being “enlightened” would fit into this view. Perhaps irony?
Anyways, that’s kind of what I got from reading Dracula, though I’m not entirely sure how accurate it would be. That’s where the discussion part of this post would come in. What are y’all’s opinion on the novel and it’s theme(s)?
I think it’s notable Bram Stoker started writing Dracula during the trial of Oscar Wilde, who was convicted of having sexual encounters with other men. The writers had known each other a long time, even fighting over the same woman in their youth, despite both being interested in men, and possibly both being gay. It’s harder to say with Bram Stoker, but he wrote quite an incriminating letter to Walt Whittman, who himself wrote very suggestive poetry about men and had relationships with them. Bram Stoker also tried to remove all references to Oscar Wilde from his own writing and correspondence following the trial. Keep in mind Oscar Wilde’s own book (The Picture of Dorean Grey) was used as evidence against him. Knowing that is going to potentially impact how other LGBTQ+ writers wrote, especially those who could be associated with him, like Stoker.
So, this book was likely written by a closeted writer, who feared imprisonment or worse, if he ever acted on his desires. It very notably and repeatedly promotes heteronormative structures as ideal in way that is unusual even for the period. Heteronotitivity is something the character of Dracula directly threatens. The first part of the book Bram Stoker wrote was Dracula defending Harker from the female vampires. This is the part where Dracula says he loves Harker and ‘this man is mine.’ This is potentially quite telling. You could easily read the book as a story about internalised homophobia, where Dracula represents (unwanted) male same sex attraction. Dracula has some potential similarities to Oscar Wilde, in fact, and it does involve a fight over women between Dracula and the male heroes.
The close male relationships themselves are interesting in terms of this interpretation. They could be read as an attempt to show close male bonds which are most definitely not sexual, because all the heroic thing the men do are very definitely for women, not for each other. While there is an element of being able to break social norms of traditional masculinity or femininity, it is only up to a point. This something LBGTQ+ people in particular would acutely aware of.
In terms of ‘social fear,’ the fear of unacceptable sexual desire as rooted in the period, and notable from the trial of Oscar Wilde, could be a consideration, but it also possibly the book speaks to the very specific fears and turmoil’s of an LGBTQ+ writer during a period of persecution.