Dracula Doesn’t Suck! – part 2

In part one of this two-part blog, I reviewed the story and themes of Dracula, but I opened the conversation by shooting a shot across the bow of common Dracula analysis. 

dracula-doesnt-suck-part-2

I contend, with absolute seriousness, that the lusty or salacious elements of Bram Stoker’s Dracula are minor themes at best, and only present in service of a much more pious purpose by the author. 

After a hundred years of reading into the text, secular commentators continue to transform the story of “Dracula.” This is part of a larger trend of turning European vampire folklore as such from examples of parasitic evil into a euphemism for promiscuity. 

dracula-doesnt-suck-part-2

In this second blog post, I intend to take this preoccupation with sexuality in the novel Dracula to task, and reclaim Dracula as a work of Christian piety.  Dracula is ultimately a book about Christian spiritual war, set during an age that was challenging traditional Christian norms. 

Dracula uses the Christian folklore of the vampire, a symbol of disease, death and evil, as a catalyst to awaken its Christian characters from their Enlightenment-induced apathy towards the supernatural. 

What Dracula does NOT do, is paint vampires as lusty symbols of liberation from Victorian prudery.

In part one, I used the fact that Wikipedia presents the primary themes of Dracula as “Gender and Sexuality,” “Race” and “Disease” as exhibit “A” of how misunderstood Stoker’s work is in the popular imagination.  Some of these elements are present, especially disease, it is true.  But “gender, sexuality and race” are primary themes?!  Absurd. 

Wikipedia is an easy target, but the popular mind welcomed the idea of Dracula as an intoxicating provocateur whose primary weapon is unabashed sexual energy long before Wikipedia came about. 

How did this happen? 

To make a long story short, mainly because of Hollywood films taking outlandish liberties with the story.  But let’s give the devil his due, many people have found a way to twist these ideas out of the novel. 

Let’s review the most popular supposed examples of salacious subversion in Dracula and explain why almost all are an abuse of the text.

There are some arguments that have merit.  An early example is the seduction of Jonathon Harker by Dracula’s unholy brides.  This is merely an example of diabolic female wiles being used to corrupt a man by tempting him with his natural weakness, not something specific to vampires as such.  And one example does not a major theme make.   

The true theme exhibited, in continuity with the rest of the Dracula novel, is how evil seeks to corrupt that which is good.

An important development later in the novel, often used as an example of subversion, is Dracula’s assault on Mina Harker in her bedroom.  Mina talks about how she feels a compulsion to go to Dracula when he enters and is compelled to feed off his blood. 

But if you contrast Mina’s description of her attack with Jonathon’s description of his attack, Jonathon does not shy away from invoking their advances as a temptation. 

Mina describes her experience as something she is forced to do, not as something she wants to do.  Dracula controls her behavior, via a kind of supernatural mesmerism, and when that is still not enough, with threat of violence against her unconscious husband. 

dracula-doesnt-suck-part-2

Temptation and compulsion are not the same thing.

A common interpretation is that the vampiric puncture is a phallic symbol.  It’s hard to discuss this without being crude, so perhaps the best way to discuss this with propriety is to move on to a much better, more proper, interpretation. 

The teeth of the vampire and the leaching of blood are best understood as a parasitic act.  This is not only literally true, but faithful to the actual folklore that inspired Stoker to use a vampire as his antagonist. 

In the European lore, most traditions depict a creature that parasites his loved ones and then his community.  As in, he begins to scourge his family, and when they are dead, he moves on to those outside his bloodline.  Vampire lore has a clear parallel to the spread of plague. 

Dracula is a death-spreader, a disease.

Another topic that is brought out of the book as an example of sexual imagery is the use of blood transfusion.  Dracula attacks Lucy and she requires the male characters to offer her their blood.  Get it?!  They are exchanging body fluids!  (I know, this is a gross interpretation…)  But Arthur Holmwood even compares the offering of his blood to his fiancé as a kind of marriage fulfillment, not knowing that the other men had done the same. 

Sounds like transfusion is an obvious symbol for the conjugal union then, eh?  But is Stoker writing this to invoke salacious comparisons?  Or rather is he invoking sacramental themes?  For a book dripping with Christian piety, which is more likely? 

From a Christian understanding, the procreative act is an icon of the marriage sacrament, the marriage sacrament is not an icon of the procreative act.  Holmwood compares his transfusion to marriage – to sacrament – not to conjugation. 

I believe the biggest reason Stoker wanted to use blood transfusion as a plot element is because it was a great example of modern medical science in the 19^th century that also happened to provide his plot the interesting parallelism of contrasting the diabolical theft of blood with the salvific offering of blood.  No salaciousness required.

dracula-doesnt-suck-part-2

Dracula indeed has a few salacious elements.  Within it there is a ton of social commentary about female purity within the Christian understanding of a well-ordered society.  Lust is a deadly sin and a tool of the Devil, and Dracula depicts it as such. 

I believe in concepts such as the “Death of the Author,” in which the reaction an audience has to a work is worthy of study and in many cases respect.   But the “Death of the Author” concept should not be a REPLACEMENT for what the Author intended to say. 

The interpretation of art is an art unto itself- performed both well or poorly.  As such, how we interpret art MATTERS.   There is no excuse to pollute culture with bad interpretation. 

Our relationship with art shouldn’t be an abusive relationship! 

Unfortunately for Bram Stoker and the noble Christian heroes of the novel “Dracula,” that is often society’s relationship to this work.  If you don’t believe me, just read the book, and see whose interpretations stack up!