Dracula or Dexter Morgan?

Dracula could be seen as a blood thirsty creature or even a serial killer. Much like Dracula a certain character from a TV show called Dexter come to mind (spoiler his name is Dexter) … as the show develops we see how obsessed Dexter is with killing, he blames this on his “Dark Passenger” which one could take it to mean his addiction. Both Dracula and Dexter are alike in the sense of killing but they are two completely different serial killers when you look as to why they do it. As we read in Stoker’s Dracula we encountered a monster that killed others for food or simply because he was trying to get revenge. On the other hand, we have Dexter Morgan the serial killer that kills people that are “guilt” or so he says. He goes by a code called “Harry’s Code” which his step father taught him so that he would never get caught. This code involves Dexter alienating himself from people, be careful and the biggest one is to never hurt any innocent person.

 We could actually argue that they are both addicted to blood, Dracula doesn’t really need that much blood to feed and Dexter has to kill people in order to satisfy his urges or else he’s not himself and gets stressed out. According to the definition of the word, addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continued use/act of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work. While Dracula has no work, the addiction interferes with his everyday life, he didn’t have to drain the blood of Lucy but he had to do it so that he could satisfy his needs and also hurt an enemy. Moreover, as we go into how much they resemble each other in their thirst for blood they both do it for a complete different reason. It’s like darkness versus light but in reality they are both darkness… In all reality we could even compare ourselves to Dracula because as a society we are addicted to social media. We tend to never leave our phones alone, we are either checking snapchat, twitter or for those of us cool cats Facebook… Well I am off to satisfy my social media addiction good luck with yours!!

The Vampire Cheerleaders that will Haunt All Our Nightmares

Although most cite Bram Stoker’s Dracula as the advent of the vampire, with some true vampire hipsters even going as far back as Vlad the Impaler and his bloodthirsty ways as inspiration, but if one truly cranks back, one can see that there is a variety of vampire (and one that is exceedingly relevant to our studies) in the ancient Greek mythos.

One of the more chaste depictions of the creature I have found

The entity in question is known as the empousa (plural empousai) and is a demigoddess/monster (depending on which definition you are using). Empusa, as she was also known, was the child of Hecate, goddess of magic, the night, and crossroads, and Mormo, an entity known for biting children that misbehaved. Now, Empusa was known for one thing: seducing young men and then in their sleep draining them of blood and devouring their flesh. She also had a very particular fashion sense. Empusa was known for wearing bronze slippers and having flaming hair. Now due to the etymology of her name (being derived from one-legged) empousai are typically depicted as monstrous beings with one donkey leg, one bronze prosthesis and hair made out of fire.

              

One fan's interpretation of Kelli the senior empousa (credit to tumblr user chiefbender)

  Now to bring this back to a more modern time, in the Percy Jackson book series, the empousai are referenced as being one of the great ills that sprang forth from Pandora’s pithos. And the elder empousai (read as: the only empousai with plot significant deaths) tend to only die by either the hands of a female or by the hands of a titan and not to mention the first time the male hero encountered them he was spellbound by their charms (and did I mention they were trying to kiss him?) while his female companion was rather, erm, not (read as: she threw an entire percussion section at their heads).

                Now although this might seem like an odd and off the wall sort of collection of facts to bring up, as we noticed in dead until dark in a few instances Charlaine Harris seems to relish in making certain that we know that vampires are not human (read as: a certain graveyard scene where Sookie says he had never seemed more vampire than he did at that point) and in Dracula the actual canon for vampires where literally the vampiresses are pretty much the empousai described above, sans the mismatched legs and the phoenix/ jean grey hair (I’m so sorry I had to get one X-men joke in there). Not to mention the fact that at times the vampires are literally not human so there’s that too.

DC Universe wants their own Dracula!

Who is it that people fear at night, the one that vanishes even in the middle of a conversation, and has even lived through hundreds of years(something that can be argued)? A hunter in the night, and millionaire in the day, Bruce Wayne, otherwise known as Batman, is today’s common adaption of Dracula. I’m not really saying that they are the same person, but more the fact that the inspiration and creation of Batman probably came from the idea of Dracula. Many people probably wouldn’t think about this comparison, but under further examination many similarities can be found between the millionaire playboy, Bruce Wayne, and wealthy Count of Transylvania, Dracula.

This large symbolism behind both Batman and Dracula is the fear they strike into their enemies during the night. When comparing Dracula to Batman, I’m specifically talking about Bram Stoker’s adaption of Dracula. Knowing that, both men are in search of something throughout the night, that one thing they desire the most. For Batman, it’s justice on another side of the law, and for Dracula it’s a search for something deeper than just feeding to live, both men’s fixations can be related back to one phrase, “a search for blood”. When Batman fights his opponents, he usually beats them so that they are unconscious or conscious but in ropes although never killing someone. In relation, Dracula tends to incapacitate his victims or weaken them by draining their blood.

Relating back to the earlier mention of living through hundreds of years, we all know that Dracula is basically immortal, but at first people will bring up the argument of how can Batman live for hundreds of years if he is just human? In one of his comics Batman states, “I wear a mask. And that mask, it's not to hide who I am, but to create what I am” (Batman) showing a figurative interpretation that Batman is not a person, but an idea, a symbol and those are eternal. In addition, a literal interpretation would be in the current comics by the author Grant Morrison during the arc of the “Return of Bruce Wayne”, Batman is traveling through time after a battle with Darkseid that resulted in him being tossed towards the beginning of time around the cavemen era. It is here where although he has no memory; he acts on instinct dawning the pelt of a giant bat. In a summary of the story, he is blasted through different parts of time all leading up to the current time arc so basically you could say that he has lived hundreds of years.

Returning back to the comparison of Dracula and Batman, both men are wealthy and also live in large mansions that include a cave either nearby or under the mansion. It is here in the cave that you can see both men’s fixations on bats and that both would take up a name or form encompassing these creatures. The graphic novel trilogy of Batman Blood Rain also pits Batman against the legendary Dracula, however, it’s not the fact that they have a showdown going on that’s important, but the drawing of the characters makes them look almost like twins showing they can in fact be the same person. Something that is important to note is they each have some form of help, Batman has Alfred the Butler who is more family then just a servant, whereas Dracula has his vampiress’ whom he also calls family. Lastly, it is important to note how both men’s behavior change with day and night. During the day, it can be argued that Batman is powerless as Bruce Wayne since he keeps this certain image that Bruce is not a fighter, and in order to mask his identity as Batman he doesn’t show his true fighting skills and athleticism in public during the day. In relation, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is known as the wealthy and nicely dressed Prince Vlad III of Wallachia during the day and is largely weakened at this time compared to his strength during the night. In conclusion, both Batman and Dracula roam the night out of emotional loss and even though they are from two different time periods and literature universes, they are the same upon careful speculation.

The Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Relationship in Dracula

The Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Relationship in Dracula

Bram Stoker emphasizes homosexuality amongst the male characters of his novel. On the other hand, when heterosexual relationships are portrayed, they are only sexual in the context of unwedded, and typically one-sidedly vampiric, couples. Stoker emphasizes sexuality outside of the confines of marriage and sometimes heteronormative conditions, testing the boundaries of Victorian expectations.

Most of the male characters in the novel show some type of homosexual impulse or allusions to homosexual acts in the past. Van Helsing, in his first letter to Dr. Seward, tells Jack that he owes him for “that time when you suck from my wound so swiftly the poison of the gangrene from that knife that our other friend, too nervous, let slip” (Stoker 106). There is a lot that can be read into simply that statement, but the novel contains much more sexuality within its pages.

When Jonathan stumbles into one of the older rooms of Dracula’s castle and the three vampiresses appear, a highly sexualized situation takes place amongst the four before Dracula steps in. Jonathan, engaged to Mina, lets this scene play out, giving himself over to a certain sense of infidelity. The vampiresses are able to seduce him easily, which seems fairly plausible considering Mina and Jonathan’s relationship appears to be essentially the only asexualized in the novel. Jonathan simply isn’t getting any, so when these vampiresses appear, engaged or not, he sits back and lets it all happen. Mina and Jonathan, the only couple that achieves the ideal of marriage in the novel and embody the Victorian heterosexual family, are also the only ones who remain chaste, at least within the context of the story while it’s narrated. The fact that they name the son they later have—hello, perfect nuclear family—after Quincey, who is killed with a phallic knife, is highly suggestive to the homoerotic elements that wound them all up in the mess of Dracula in the first place. Back to Jonathan’s seduction, though: while one of the vampiresses’ lips hover over Jonathan’s “throat,” Dracula bursts in and declares “‘This man is mine!’” (43). His claim of ownership over Jonathan is both in the way that a predator claims his prey and the way a lover will claim their partner. He disapproves of and stops this heterosexual scene that excludes him—so maybe, in reality, he was just feeling a bit jealous that the vampiresses were hogging Jonathan.

Lucy, meanwhile, receives a blood transfusion from Arthur, Jack, Van Helsing, and Quincey. She is married to none of them, and since this operation is equated to sex—as emphasized in Coppola’s Dracula, with her incessant moaning during the procedure—she, though heterosexual, essentially practices premarital relations with all four of these men. This is while she herself is turning into a vampiress, meaning all heterosexual sex in the novel remains between unwedded persons, transcending the Victorian mold of a chaste, innocent woman—well, vampiress, in this case.

So, what’s your view on these relationships? Is Stoker blatantly deconstructing the Victorian heterosexual relationship with these characters as he’s presented them? Will the world ever know how many licks/interpretations it takes to get to the center of his—uh, metaphoric—Tootsie Pop/homosexual novel?

Homophobia, Dracula and Homoeroticism

For the time period, Dracula is a striking novel with homoerotic themes for the victorian ages. Many characters describe interactions with the vampires that are easily interpreted as homoerotic, for instance, Dracula has many scenes where his actions and words convey his lust for Jonathan Harker, like when he rebukes his brides for touching him, claiming that Harker is "Mine" these homoerotic themes might stand out to us in today's time, but these themes did not fly over the heads of the Victorian audiences that read this novel. Bram Stoker was not the type of literary genius that successfully hid homoerotic themes in his novel that nobody noticed until the twentieth century.

Stoker lived in a very homophobic time; one of his friends (Or acquaintances) was Oscar Wilde who was at the time on trial for having a homosexual relationship. It would be hard to say that this did not influence Dracula, but there is no denying that the homoerotic themes are present. The titular character Dracula, is not the traditional hetero normative male character, he does display much more homosexual tendencies and gender inversion not common among literary characters of the time. This is not to say that the character suffers from it, his homosexual characteristics might add to his villainy among Victorian audiences. He very well could be the type of character that the readers are given another reason to hate for his departure form traditional gender and sexual orientation roles.

This brings up an interesting point; did Bram Stoker mold the villain of his most famous work to make the readers hate him even more? Instead of just creating a mythical monster that offends the readership by his very existence, he created one that’s a monster in more ways than one. The social consequences of being a homosexual in those times were dire, and by creating a villain that displays homosexual tendencies makes him that much more dangerous. Dracula didn’t just threaten life, he threatened the social pressures of the time and made him seem that much more demonic. Today a gay vampire might not raise many eyebrows, but back then, the idea of a homosexual who essentially infects his victims with the same tendencies is a very real fear people of the time felt. Stoker’s characters were not dealing with just a common ground monster, this was a being who could turn gender and sexual norms upside down, and that made him all the more necessary to be destroyed. Stoker might well have created Dracula as a criticism of the social and societal views of homosexuality at the time. Whether this is just a criticism or just good use of knowing your audience is yet to be determined.