Thoughts About Vampires - Tumblr Posts

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.

I know it's kinda late in the game for this question, but why garlic?

I'm aware of the idea that vampire stories were inspired by a real disease... I cannot for the life of me recall its name. And people suffering from it are sensitive to light and strong flavors and smells.

But is there anything more to it? The disease idea works to explain why garlic repels vampires, but why stuff it in the mouth of a decapitated vampire head?

And I saw that some have argued that Stoker was inspired by the Potato Famine, which he lived through, I gather. People would weaken and die, and some were buried alive. How does garlic fit with that?

Did Stoker find out about garlic from a specific source, and if so, what does the source say about it?

Interesting article! The disease I was thinking of is porphyria. But it's also very intriguing to see garlic linked to rabies.

I wonder, though, if the burning properties of raw garlic that they talk about in the article might be part of the puzzle. The article dissuades the reader from eating raw garlic because it can cause second degree burns (which, as an aside, yikes, and I had no idea). Traditionally fire was used to purify. That's why heretics and eventually witches were executed by burning. The Church believed it was necessary to burn the heretic/witch to cleanse the world of their corruption and evil. So... maybe stuffing garlic in the decapitated head of a vampire is less about garlic as a cure for vampirism as a disease and more a method of burning purification.

Though why not take the next logical step and burn the body?

I know it's kinda late in the game for this question, but why garlic?

I'm aware of the idea that vampire stories were inspired by a real disease... I cannot for the life of me recall its name. And people suffering from it are sensitive to light and strong flavors and smells.

But is there anything more to it? The disease idea works to explain why garlic repels vampires, but why stuff it in the mouth of a decapitated vampire head?

And I saw that some have argued that Stoker was inspired by the Potato Famine, which he lived through, I gather. People would weaken and die, and some were buried alive. How does garlic fit with that?

Did Stoker find out about garlic from a specific source, and if so, what does the source say about it?

Lol at garlic cloves choosing violence. And yeah, I’m surprised too as I do a fair amount of cooking and I’ve never had any negative experiences. Then again I may fall into the Mediterranean immunity they mention, and if so, I’m not even gonna question it.

Giving my “why not burn it with fire” question some more thought, I have a theory: secrecy. As far as I know the beheading and stuffing of garlic into mouths really only happens in stories...? And is therefore pretty different from witch hunting and heretic burning. Those situations emerged in real life and were deliberately public as a way to warn commoners not to fuck around with black magic/heresy or they’d find out. In stories, becoming a vampire is framed as involuntary (with the exception of Renfield). If anything, those dealing with the problem are emotionally attached to the undead monster in a way that inquisitors never were to the accused they put through public executions. It makes sense that they can’t and wouldn’t want to do anything as necessarily attention-worthy as burning a body.

Though, I suppose cremation was an option? I know Catholics are pretty anti-cremation but I don’t know how Church of England folks view it.

I know it's kinda late in the game for this question, but why garlic?

I'm aware of the idea that vampire stories were inspired by a real disease... I cannot for the life of me recall its name. And people suffering from it are sensitive to light and strong flavors and smells.

But is there anything more to it? The disease idea works to explain why garlic repels vampires, but why stuff it in the mouth of a decapitated vampire head?

And I saw that some have argued that Stoker was inspired by the Potato Famine, which he lived through, I gather. People would weaken and die, and some were buried alive. How does garlic fit with that?

Did Stoker find out about garlic from a specific source, and if so, what does the source say about it?

Why did Dracula force Mina to drink his (her? Lucy's? Other victims? Whose blood runs in Dracula's body??) blood?

This seems like an easy question to answer based on lots of other vampire stories: to make her a vampire. But Van Helsing said that all she needed to do was die after Dracula fed on her, right?

Which has always sat wrong for me. By that logic, every baby the weird sisters killed would become a vampire. The sailors from the crew of the Demeter would wake up underwater and make their way to land (an image I find delightfully creepy, tbh). So Van Helsing must be wrong.

But did Dracula make Lucy drink his blood?

I guess we can't know for sure, but I don't recall anyone ever saying she had blood on her mouth.

So if it's not an action required to make a vampire, why did he make Mina do it? Just to be gross?

I hope this gets cleared up; I hate unanswered questions.