Goodreads Ireland discussion

I think the way the two women are portrayed is quite funny. You have Mina who is the perfect woman-beautiful, intelligent and demure, dutiful wife. Then you have Lucy who he has been sexed up so much that she would have to be dracula's first victim because it's such easy pickings.
And all the men fighting for their honour is quite laughable.
I think you could nit pick this book to death but at the end of the day it's a great book. Dracula is beyond evil in it, even while listening to the audiobook I could picture the old black and White film which was probably the best vampire film ever. There is a constant sense of dread whilst Jonathan is in dracula's house, you are just waiting for Dracula to pounce. It's brilliant.

Interesting take on it and it is true. The mens motivation actually reminded me of The Illiad where all the suitorsof Helen are dragged into the war all because they wanted her.
It is true that the motives on all sides are sexual in origin.
One thing I think is very interesting is Draculas original sexual target is Lucy . He is portrayed as feeding on blood but she is described as pretty much anaemic right from the start. So Dracula doesnt really need the blood for any nutritional value, more the sexual control aspect.
Where I would disagree with you Emma is that sometimes impure motives can still lead to heroic action and despite being quite afraid some of the characters do rise to the occassion in quite dangerous circumstance.

And I agree Seraphina. There are easily pulled faults in the book but they don't stop it being a great read. The atmosphere is brilliantly set up. Even in a reread I'm on edge with Jonathan in the Castle.

They are all "Gentlemen" in their own heads so they do fool themselves if not the readers. Dr Seward in particular is quite the class snob when it comes down to it .
Definitely hypocritical figures , which makes them more interesting.
I do like the idea that the only thing dividing them from the "evil" Dracula is this Victorian set of enforced morals.

Interesting thought on Lucy as well. I didn't think of it as a sexual symbol of innocence or lack thereof. I took it more as her being the exact opposite of Dracula hence his attraction. Maybe too simplistic.

I'll have to look up Donne. Think I only remember one of his poems.
But it is a fairly obvious symbol and considering how much vampire literature I've read I should have got it. In saying that its a tad less subtle in the likes of The Vampire Chronicles and other works .

Its an interesting theme.
Possibly why its made clear that Dracula is of another time all together.

I've studied Donne and I'm surprised I never made the connection between the Flea and Dracula. Between the sex and the blood sucking metaphor they are incredibly similar only Donne's intention isn't as dark as Dracula.

Its quite interesting reading the tranfusion section. While the three suitors are idiots I still see some redemption, this scene being one of the points, Arthur severely weakening himself to give Lucy blood. For any of the sexual connotations he freely gives , as would Seward . They are never self aware of their own flawed perspective but at the same time they willingly give while Dracula only takes( unless you count him sharing the babies)

I'm also finding Van Helsing a bit funny to read . His broken English is almost a bad cliche but his similes are fun for how laboured they are.
The annotations compare his accent to Donald Ducks mad scientist uncle.

An interesting one for Emma as i know we have a similar view of Lucy☺
Reading a few of the notes and the chapter where the wolf breaks Lucys window it leads to some interesting speculation.
Dracula can only enter where invited (Van Helsing makes this clear) and its also argued he can only take blood when allowed . Plainly Lucy is as "guilty" as Dracula then. What adds to the interesting thought process is the drugging of the maids. Dracula has powerful hypnotic skills so why would he need opiates to put the maids out of action. Surely the more likely culprit is Lucy who is trying to buy time with Dracula while lying to her own journal.

Hmmm that's an interesting theory, I never would have thought of that.

Theres some interesting notes by a guy called Fred Saberhagen (Salems cousin) who is completely of the opinion that Dracula is the innocent victim in the whole affair

I definitely don't see him as the innocent victim but its still curious to see some can see him that way. Mina is a curiosity. She seems to be portrayed as quite the golden girl all right but applying some of the theories would lead to quite the opposite conclusion and like Lucy shes not so pure.

Not hard to be purer than Lucy I think ☺

Paul wrote: "Not hard to be purer than Lucy I think ☺"

Isn't Lucy really being punished for abandoning the restrictions Victorians placed on women? It must have been incredibly difficult in those days for women who just wanted the freedom to live their own lives. They were as bound by the era's concept of propriety as they were by the corsets fashion dictated.

Playing four men off each other isnt something I'd see as acceptable now either ☺ But to some degree she is punished for breaching the social convention

I don't think Lucy went out to play 4 men off against each other. She didn't seem clever enough to do that. I thought the only time she used her sexuality was after becoming a vampire when all Victorian restrictions could be ignored. This was why the men were so determined to kill her, in order to restore her to being good and pious. So that the men could feel better in themselves.

Interestingly she was actually dumbed down from Stokers initial draft so maybe that is exactly what he was going for and her sounding too smart didn't help.
But she received three proposals before Dracula was in the picture and I can't help but feel the three guys weren't encouraged by her to go to that point.

It's true Paul, in a few of the Victorian novels I have read this is often the case. The women string a few men along until the right suitor turns up. So as to have another option. But only the girls with large dowrys or extreme beauty are able to do this so it doesn't say much for either gender.
I suppose things haven't changed too much for the rich, beautiful, famous people of today

So sad but true. Its interesting that Arthur /Lord Godalming goes on to inherit all Lucy's mothers property and money due to a conveniently recent will change. Was she even the prize for him .

I'm trying to think of the hidden meanings behind the death of Quincy Morris and besides from the idea of Europe being dangerous for the American adventurer, I can't really come up with any other reason. I'll have to do a re read first I suppose :)

Maybe he's just the red ensign of the group. One of em had to kick it.

Since Dracula is going down so well among the group I may nominate this The Quick http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18... in the near future. An

Since Dracula is going down so well among the group I may nominate this The Quick http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18... in the near future. An excellent debut.

I read that Stoker may have killed him off as a little dig at America since there seemed to be a great rivalry between GB and the States at the time. Thinking about it, between all the characters, Morris is the one we know and care least about so it makes sense to choose the weaker character for the sacrifice.

Could be somewhere between both.

So after her funeral Van Helsing describes Lucy as a polyandrist , with the blood exchanges with 4 men symbolising a marriage but interesting the word , while technically meaning a woman with multiple husbands, more commonly meant a prostitute . Nice way to speak of the dead

I hope it is not a silly question but here it goes: you were talking about the dame in distress and her 3 silly admirers, and I was wondering if this book could be considered as a product of the Romantic era, even though is a horror novel?

It can definitely be seen as an off shoot. Some of the characteristics reflect characters in other books.
Van Helsing is the frustrated Rochester of Jane Eyre, lusting after a woman while he is tied to an insane wife , Stoker definitely takes reference to romantic novels

Put so much better than I could Emma ☺

Thanks Paul and Emma. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite books, so, yes, I understand what you mean.

So true and sad the marriage for money and social position thing. I was almost shocked with Mina's anxiety over her husband illness. She sounded more concerned of he not being able to take over the business he had just inherited than with his troubled mind. And how happy she was while mentioning their unexpected fortune on her diary!

It certainly is intriguing here and in other novels the social merry go round that had to be observed but is so alien to our current lives.
I suppose there can be the danger of judging in modern terms something so different to us

Re. America and GB rivalry, it was the turn of the 20th century when the British Empire was losing power and America was booming so I suppose there may have been a tension there. Did Americans still hate the British? I doubt it, it's fairly weak motivation for killing off a character.

Re. America and GB rivalry, it was the turn of the 20th century when the British Empire was losing power and America was booming so I suppose there may have been a tension there. Did Americans still hate the British? I doubt it, it's fairly weak motivation for killing off a character.

I don't think it was so much rivalry that induced Stoker to use an American character as the wish to include an exotic element. If you remember, Conan Doyle did something similar when he interpolated in his first Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet, that sentimental episode set in Utah. Of course, once it's time to kill someone off, it might as well be the foreigner rather than a stalwart Englishman. :-)

You're probably right Frank. Him being a foreigner his character may not be held to the same value as the others are

Kevin, Emma is right . GB was at its height at the turn of the century. Far from the Empire fading it was actually at its largest ever extent in 1900. The US was still little more than an emerging power. Not yet anything more than a nuisance

Fair point Frank.

Another interesting theory in the annoted version, Quincy is in league with Dracula.
He nearly shoots his Allies , keeps sneaking off just after Dracula shows up and seems inept for a so called great hunter. Is his death at the end merely a distracton of sorts to hide Draculas escape.
Not sure i buy into this theory but still an interesting twist

Paul wrote: "Another interesting theory in the annoted version, Quincy is in league with Dracula.
He nearly shoots his Allies , keeps sneaking off just after Dracula shows up and seems inept for a so called gre..."


Interesting. Actually, I found suspicious Quincy's behaviour towards the end of the book, suddenly running out of the room, and noticing things before anybody else.

I truly considered he could be working with Dracula, and more than that, I thought he could be Dracula himself, considering him could become anything he wanted.

Interesting thoughts. The others have seen both Quincy and Dracula at the same time but in saying that Dracula can create hallucinations so it can't be ruled out. Quincy is a strange character, overplaying American stereotypes and too quick to react.

The various angles and characters really do allow for a lot of discussion.
I'm just surprised it was never chosen as a read before considering its an Irish group and its one of the biggest Irish books of all time

I think people are often ignorant of it being written by an Irish author, especially when you consider the modern day popularity of vampires and the vampire-like creature being known worldwide. It's pretty amazing that it survives so well in contemporary culture, would you put it down to it's accessible style and themes? Out of every novel I've read from Stoker's era I have to say that Dracula is probably the one I find to be most approachable.

Kevin mentioned the modern day popularity of vampires. I've often wondered why this should be so. I can understand the phenomenon in the prudish Victorian era when such a story was as close as one could come to discussing sex, but in modern times the concept seems archaic. And yet there are no end to the vampire films and novels now being made. People today are still as fascinated by vampires as in Stoker's time.

I suppose its the monster thats still human in so many ways. They are used to exagerate traits or do things others are afraid to. A lot of later vampire lit has some level of escapism to it.For all the evilness and links to satan there is still an attractiveness and charm to the Vampire missing in most other 'monsters' Anne Rice managed it very well with the Vampire Chronicles with Lestat reaching near god status

Twilight doesnt count as they're not proper vampires☺

Plus they're shiny :-) i know how that makes your head explode.

Almost sounded interesting there ;-)
My favourite modernised vampire series growing up was Blade.
It had so much mythology and history built into the stories making it so interesting . Great film adaption as well

Don't forget Buffy :). When you look back on it, it was actually a fairly graphic and up exaggerated representation of vampires etc. even though it was aimed at a teen audience. She was probably every young lad's first crush too. There is something about a dangerous blonde with a blood stained knife that was appealing, so the link between vampires and sex appeal never faded. I'm sure many girls were attracted to the male counterparts too, like that fella who is in Bones now.