Before Van Helsing’s
boiz were trying to outsmart Dracula, an iconic detective was already outsmarting criminals.
I am of coarse
talking about the famous Sherlock Holmes.
You might be
asking yourself, why bring up Sherlock Holmes? He has NOTHING to do with Dracula at all, does he?
These excellent questions my readers.
I bring up the Consulting Detective and Dr. Watson to for a very specific purpose.
They are the same
characters as John Seward and Abraham Van Helsing.
I know you must think I’m BS-ing here, but stay with me.
Time for some
character background:
Sherlock Holmes is
a character driven by logic and reason. He is a man of science, who often
scoffs at people who believe in the supernatural. When a case appears to be based
in myths and legends, and Dr. Watson actually begins to believe it, Sherlock scolds
him for believing superstition could solve anything. Even when all the clues point to the supernatural, Sherlock was always confident there was a rational explanation.
Science and Reason vs. Superstition and Myth is one of the overarching themes in Dracula. England represents the modern world where the dark superstations of the past are replaced by the light of scientific discovery. In contrast, Romania represents the unexplained that science can’t prove or disprove. These two perspectives of superstition vs. science, just so happen to be the same as Van Helsing and John Seward's mindsets. In the novel, Van Helsing is quick to believe in the supernatural while Seward is less inclined to believe. Seward notices the mysterious red marks on Lucy’s throat, but much akin Sherlock, he is so set in his logic and reason, he is unwilling to admit they could have been caused by a supernatural being.
So.
Based on this evidence, is Van Helsing John Watson? I mean, he does rush into things like John Watson. Where Sherlock would have outsmarted the Count, and Dracula would have never seen him coming, Van Helsing and his boiz are just like:
Science and Reason vs. Superstition and Myth is one of the overarching themes in Dracula. England represents the modern world where the dark superstations of the past are replaced by the light of scientific discovery. In contrast, Romania represents the unexplained that science can’t prove or disprove. These two perspectives of superstition vs. science, just so happen to be the same as Van Helsing and John Seward's mindsets. In the novel, Van Helsing is quick to believe in the supernatural while Seward is less inclined to believe. Seward notices the mysterious red marks on Lucy’s throat, but much akin Sherlock, he is so set in his logic and reason, he is unwilling to admit they could have been caused by a supernatural being.
So.
Based on this evidence, is Van Helsing John Watson? I mean, he does rush into things like John Watson. Where Sherlock would have outsmarted the Count, and Dracula would have never seen him coming, Van Helsing and his boiz are just like:
 |
(Essentially the ending of the book) |
In addition to this, Van Helsing does jump to the supernatural conclusion rather quickly. Almost the second after he sees Lucy, Van Helsing already has the house decked out with garlic, crucifixes, and other vampire fighting stuff. But unlike John Watson, whenever Van Helsing claims the culprit is a supernatural being, he is absolutely right. If it wasn't for Van Helsing, the other characters wouldn't have reached the conclusion they had a vampire in their midst so quickly. So if Seward is supposed to be Sherlock in this situation, then why does his ‘John Watson’ (Van Helsing) figure out the ‘case’ before he does?
Sherlock is characterized by the fact he is always 10 steps ahead of every other person in the room. Isn’t this Van Helsing in the book? Not Seward. Just as Sherlock wields his knowledge of science and reason, Van Helsing proves himself to be the expert on myth and the supernatural.
So could it be John Seward is John Watson with a 'Sherlock' mindset and Van Helsing is Sherlock with a 'John Watson' mindset?
Sherlock is characterized by the fact he is always 10 steps ahead of every other person in the room. Isn’t this Van Helsing in the book? Not Seward. Just as Sherlock wields his knowledge of science and reason, Van Helsing proves himself to be the expert on myth and the supernatural.
So could it be John Seward is John Watson with a 'Sherlock' mindset and Van Helsing is Sherlock with a 'John Watson' mindset?
Is it the other way around?
 |
Who knows.
All in all, I think it is an interesting concept to think about, considering Dracula came out only 10 years after Sherlock made his debut in A Study in Scarlet. Maybe I could be reading too much into it and these connections could all just be coincidences. But, you know what they say about coincidences:
All in all, I think it is an interesting concept to think about, considering Dracula came out only 10 years after Sherlock made his debut in A Study in Scarlet. Maybe I could be reading too much into it and these connections could all just be coincidences. But, you know what they say about coincidences:
You make a very valid point. We already see Stoker borrowing from many other new ideas and concepts during this time—from Mina’s use of the typewriter, to the trial of Oscar Wilde’s influence over the homoerotic vibes in the novel—so it’s not at all a stretch to believe that he’d read Doyle’s stories. He certainly kept up with the times.
ReplyDeleteNow that you’ve drawn the connection, I can see how Van Helsing could be influenced by Watson and Seward by Holmes. However, I wouldn’t say that Stoker borrowed heavily from these characters, which is demonstrated already in their differences. We also know (or at least assume) that Carmilla influenced Stoker as well, but the two stories are wildly different from each other. Doyle may have been an inspiration for some of Stoker’s writing, but we also have to give the guy credit for his ingenuity when he wrote this novel.
I saw immediately where you were coming from- especially since I am an avid watcher of the BBC Sherlock. The best example of your theory would be The Abominable Bride; Sherlock knows from the beginning that there is not a ghost while John is so convinced that there is, indeed, a ghost and that it is after the both of them. Sherlock runs purely on logic and science- as does Jack- and John seems to float around to what seems to be the most possible. And yet, Sherlock seems more like Van Helsing and John seems more like Jack to me. Sherlock and Van Helsing both suck socially (lets be honest, here) and John and Jack are both anchored as doctors. I find it funny that the four men can be paired up based on scientific beliefs and also on their personality styles.
ReplyDeleteAre the characters of Dracula based on some Sherlock characters? Maybe. But it wouldn't shock me if Stoker and Doyle were in the same friend group. And it wouldn't shock me if Stoker did, in fact, take some characters traits from Sherlock and John and transplant them into Jack and Van Helsing.