I Wonder If We Did? Is It A Plant For Something Later?

I wonder if we did? Is it a plant for something later?

Jack is sooo pretentious. My brother in christ, we did not need the whole chemical formula of your sleeping pill

It occurs to me that I haven't yet articulated something percolating in my mind. I've never read Dracula but I have been exposed to a (very different) stage production and the 90s movie. And I've seen plenty of references to it in other media and people imitating Bela Lugosi saying "I vant to suck your blood."

Which brings me to my point. Up until recently reading Dracula Daily, I just never even questioned the concept of Dracula, and most vampires in general, wanting to hunt and kill people for their blood. Like, blood is their food; when they are hungry they want human blood, like mosquitoes or ticks or whatever.

However, since reading Lucy's description of her experience being preyed on by Dracula, it's made me think I have been missing Stoker's point. And that many vampire story creators also don't address (and they certainly don't have to).

Dracula is feeding on Lucy's soul. The blood is incidental. He's draining her of herself. That's why strength of character makes a difference. Mina has built her character, the strength of her soul, in ways Lucy was always prevented from doing. Same with the captain of the Demeter. As captain, he was a stronger character than any other crew member, so he could resist being consumed. It's about way more than blood.

Idk if I'm conveying my epiphany very well. It's not that the idea of vampires eating souls is new to me. It's more that I think the blood part of it has been way overemphasized. Blood consumption has become the defining characteristic of vampires, and I think it's not at all what Stoker was trying to convey. They are demons that consume the spirit of a person. That's what makes what they do so evil and devastating. If it was just blood, it could be neutral in certain circumstances. But it's not blood. It's everything that makes a person who they are.

Lucy silently weeping... I'm 😭😭😭

As I said in a previous post, I played Lucy in my middle school's production of Dracula. Now, this was sixth grade, and I am autistic, so to say I felt awkward and behaved in cringey ways towards the boy who was Arthur is... putting it mildly. He did not take it well and got vocally frustrated with me. So I didn't like him, and as a result, I have lingering hostility towards Arthur! 😂

Today's entry did nothing to soothe my feelings towards him:

"When Arthur came to lunch he looked quite grieved when he saw me, and I hadn't the spirit to try to be cheerful."

So I may be overreacting but fck that guy. *He* was grieved? Like, come on, man. Her mom is dying, her friend is gone, and she's sick. Step tf up, Art. You're it. Be the change you want to see, my dude.

Guys, how do I block the tag that warns of Dracula spoilers? Sorry I'm a newb.

I'm confused. A lot of people seem to be taking the Lucy letter in stride. I see a lot who are confident she's lying. But if so, is she really in London and making almost all of it up? Others think she went back to Whitby from London and aren't fussed that she says it's been a week while five days ago she was wasting away in London. They take most of what she says as truth.

My first assumption when I read today's email is that Stoker made another timeline mistake, and this letter should have gone out before the diary entry. I've never read the book. From what one person mentioned, in the book her health seesaws, so my theory is probably wrong. But it makes more sense to me than anything else. Why would she go back to London for just a little while and then return to Whitby? She was on holiday in Whitby, right? It makes sense that the letter should come...

WAIT.

Okay no.

For a second I thought I'd figured it out. I thought maybe the letter was sent awhile before the London diary entry and we were reading it when Mina received it. But the emails are based on when a letter is dated, as we saw with Sister Agatha's. So that's not it.

Anyway, as I was saying. It makes sense that there would be a period of time after Dracula left for London, when Lucy would remain in Whitby to finish out her holiday. And of course during that time she'd feel so much better. Dracula's hold on her mind would be gone, so no sleepwalking. No bad dreams. And physically she'd recover, too.

/Then/ when she left Whitby and got to London, triggering Dracula's vampy sense and bringing him to the yard and all, things would go bad fast. /Then/ the London diary entry makes sense.