also ONE?? one SINGLE extra piece of jesus? likeā¦ā¦ā¦idk i feel like if you want to blow out draculaās sacred dirt fuses you need more than one communionās worth of jesus. what calculations are you basing this on? what are the laws of sacrodynamics? come on catholics i KNOW you know
So Jesus sacrificed himself (1 body) to save the Earth (approximately 4.5 billion tons of dirt). Based on the time he lived, his profession, and the assumption that he was relatively healthy and fit, we can assume he weight about 140 pounds. A standard Eucharist wafer weighs about 0.25 grams, which means it takes 234,960.85 wafers to equal one full body of Jesus.
This means it takes approximately 234,961 wafers (rounded up for safety, better too much than too little) to purify all the dirt on the planet, assuming every inch of ground was unhallowed before He saved us (and if you're Catholic aren't you assuming that anyway?)
Simplified, this means it takes one Eucharist wafer to sanitize about 19,152,114 pounds of unhallowed earth. So if anything, Dr. Van Hellsing was actually overcompensating here. But to be fair, this formula was not discovered yet, so he was doing his best.
Sources:
How Many Communions Would It Take To Consume One Full Jesus?
is it morally incorrect to vote more than once in the poll and/or will i be sued for it
((i want my best friend jonathan to win you see))
Itās your moral duty to vote only once, as per the rules. I understand rooting for your favorite character, but things must be fair for everyone else voting. You are free to campaign for your pick to persuade others to vote, but voting more than once is strictly prohibited.
Anyway, I really hope people who dismissed and degraded Renfield as 'haha funny super gross mentally ill crazy bug man who deserves bad things for being drawn to Dracula loooool' see the error of their ways and repent now!
I have one more thing to say regarding the projection of modern gender politics onto the Harkers that's just not supported by the text or taking the contemporary context into account - see my previous post, re: Jonathan being over-idealized as progressive - before I move on to other topics, and I'm not going to go into as much detail right now and may re-visit this later, but - I love Mina, and she's a wonderful character and heroine who both rises above her author's biases and her time period AND is constrained by them in a very realistic, complex way, even by modern standards, but fun memes and character appreciation aside, it's really disheartening sometimes to see her very human and multi-layered character with a complex, fraught relationship with feminism in-universe and on a meta level flattened into some kind of flawless superwoman who is single-handedly going to save the day as the novel's only hero bc she is some kind of Exceptional Woman and stereotypical Strong Female Character TM who is a fearless warrior woman action hero and modern-day feminist stuck in the body of a Victorian woman who is going to slamdunk the men with FEMINISM while she also has to babysit them bc they're useless stupid babies who can't stand a strong, independent woman, etc.
Like, I'm being somewhat facetious and exaggerating for effect, and again, memes are fun, but this isn't actually a feminist reading bc it's ironically dehumanizing, does a disservice to her complex character, posits that she can't be truly heroic unless she's punching or shooting people like a traditional male hero (though yes, she should be included, I'm not arguing against that), gets into gender essentialist woman good man bad thinking that's not fair to any character or the text, and reinforces the idea that individualism is superior to collectivism - which completely goes against the surprisingly progressive, humanistic, and hopeful theme of the novel that teamwork and collective action saves the day for the heroes, in contrast to Dracula the ultimate individualist operating alone.
I know Dracula is just an evil drama queen who has to do things in the most evil and dramatic way possible, but technically, he could probably get into the asylum by walking up to the door and being like, 'Hello! I am Count de Ville! And I am definitely not evil!', and idk ask to use the loo (a very English word), and then Patrick Hennessey would be like, yeah, sure, I guess?, and that would be that lol
Now that weāre starting to see the fallout from the menās sidelining of Mina, I want to discuss one of the central themes I see in Dracula, which is a critique of the Victorian ideal of womanhood.
Mina, despite one chapterās digressions into having her condemn the ānew woman,ā is a very different and more modern figure. As if the start of the book, she works for a living (as a teacher). She pursues modern skills such as shorthand, typing, and reporting, and she is very good at them. Her letters and diary entries, even her writing style, show a sharp intelligence and a vivid sense of humour. She is brave and cool-headed in a crisis (as we see in the incident of Lucyās sleepwalking). She makes her own decisions based on observation and good judgement (as with reading Jonathanās diary), and she plans ahead and sees what needs to be done. She is crucial to bringing together all the necessary information about Dracula. And, for much of the book, she accomplishes all this completely untouched by him.
Until the moment the men decide to exclude her on the basis or her womanhood, at which moment she is almost immediately - on that very night - attacked by Dracula. (Not a spoiler - as of today, Oct 1, it is obvious from her diary entry). Even more, that exclusion not only endagers her by denying her relevant information, it endangers her and everyone because she canāt be open any more either. She fears that if she shows her unhappiness - if she tells anyone of her ānightmareā - they will see it as further proof of nervous weakness and exclude her even more, perhaps send her away from London. (And - I didnāt realize ths until now - todayās very entries show she is right in fearing this. When Renfield presents his case rationally and is refused, he becomes emotional and desperate - and Seward sees that very emotion and desperation as a further reason not to listen to him!)
There is a very clear theme here. Treat women accoding to the Victorian ideal, neglect or ignore their talents, treat them as if their only purpose is to inspire men to greatness by their passive beauty and sweetness and purity, and you endanger both them and yourselves. Treat women as equals and helpmeets and partners, employ their skills and intelligence in concert with your own, and you can achieve amazing things together. Mina is absolutely still treated in the story as an inspiration to the men through her goodness, but that inspiration is in addition to real, practical contributions.
Thatās not to say Dracula isnāt sexist. Thereās a limit to how far the theme goes. Women are allowed to be talented and smart only provided that those talents are being employed in support of men - Mina learns shorthand to help Jonathan, memorizes the train timetables to help Jonathan, will no longer have a job after marriage but will help support Jonathan in his career, always acquiesces uncomplainingly to the menās decisions and praises them. She never steps out of her assigned social place as a Victorian woman. Itās sexist not only by present-day standards, but also by the standards of the late 1800s/early 1900s womenās suffrage movement; itās far from being at the forefront of progressivism even for its time. But it is a departure from typical Victorian ideals in that womenās place is seen as not just being beautuful, sweet, innocent, and an inspiration to menās action, but in being an active partner to men, with talents, intelligence, initiative, and courage of their own. And men waste and ignore those talents at their peril.
Can I just say I love that Dracula seems to be literally incapable of subtlety? He could have picked any name he wanted, and yet he picked one that sounded like Devil, which is how this book chooses to translate Dracula.
(For those who don't know: Dracul can mean Devil or dragon, and Dracula would mean son of the Devil or dragon; but in historical context the epithet is supposed to mean dragon. Vlad Dracul, Dracula's father, was a member of the Order of the Dragon.)
Anyway, Dracula is totally the kind of guy who would use his own name + birthday as his password for everything.
Y'know I'm as mad as anyone about Van Helsing leaving Mina behind, but I still think that Mister "His wife lost her wits after theirs son's death and it's only alive by church name" does have a very personal, painful evidence of a woman not being strong enough to confront "the horrors" other than "waaa waa this is patriarchy"
Same with Jonathan and Mina listening to him, at first I thought "Why kill poor Mr Hawkins so suddenly? To have them be insta rich?" but now you realize it was to have them fill the void that Mr Hawkins left with Van Helsing... so they can listen to him as a father.
What's really dumb is to leave your women alone but hey the book has to happen š
Indulgence, Dispensation, and how to treat the Host
Have consulted my ex-Catholic mum on this, who is old enough to remember Catholicism pre-Second Vatican Council. This is important to keep in mind, because that Council liberalized certain aspects of Catholicism, but it certainly wasn't applicable to the Catholic Church in Stoker's day. In short: Stoker is very ignorant of Catholic doctrine as it was applied in the 19th century.
I think the word he was looking for was not indulgence but dispensation, essentially an allowance to suspend certain moral and legal (with regard to Church law) obligations. But the term indulgence was often especially prominent in the minds of Protestants at the time, since the sale of indulgences (i.e. calling giving money to the church a good work and reducing time in purgatory over that) was one of the main grievances Protestants had with the Catholic church.
Crumbling up the Host to make an anti-vampire seal would probably be a no-no. Every single crumb would be the Body of Christ, and it would be imperative that every single crumb was treated reverentially. You're not even supposed to break the Host with your teeth (at least this was the case during my mum's childhood, and again I emphasize pre-Vatican II Catholicism is what we're dealing with here). And if it falls to the ground or is otherwise treated improperly as the Body of Christ, it has to be specially de-consecrated by a priest. I suppose this might theoretically be covered by a dispensation, but it's hard to imagine getting a diocesan bishop or administrator (I very much doubt Van Helsing would have gone for a Papal dispensation) to agree to this without considerable effort, considering it would require Van Helsing to explain exactly why he needed a dispensation.
Side note: It had been a while since my ex-Catholic mum read this book and didn't remember all the details. The slow, incredulous ascension of her eyebrows as I described what Van Helsing did with the Host was magical to watch.
Stoker is strikingly pro-Catholic for a Church of Ireland Protestant, but goodwill does not grant insight in and of itself. Imagine, if you will, a white director trying to make a film sympathetic to the Comanche people... but everything he knows about them (or supposes he knows) comes from watching other Westerns. That's more-or-less the same sort of position Stoker was in. Men of his class would have had very little discourse with Irish Catholics unless they specifically sought them out, and Stoker clearly didn't.
So. Stoker just got all of this wrong. Maybe someone can think of a Watsonian explanation for this, but all I can think of is that Seward got the word wrong, and Van Helsing managed to find a senior clergyman who also believed in vampires.
The Host. I brought it from Amsterdam. I have an Indulgence.
This line has me slightly confused. IANARC but in my understanding an indulgence is some good work that gets the doer a reduction in time in purgatory. Is Van Helsing saying that, because of his good works, there is some priest in Amsterdam willing to provide him with communion wafer for vampire hunting? Or is the Church of Ireland raised (i.e. protestant) Stoker garbling catholic doctrine?
Readers. Friends. I ask you to pick up your Bibles and please do not turn to John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than to eat bugs, beg for kittens, shank a psychologist, and devote himself body and soul to a scary Romanian guy.
Again, do not turn to that chapter and verse. You have no need to, I've just outlined it for you and that is definitely what it says. You have no need to verify anything because of the bond of trust we share. You all know I would never, ever steer you wrong. Some people will tell you not to trust anonymous randos, and they are absolutely right. But I am not just any anonymous rando: I am an anonymous rando with a vision.
@draculadailybracket is running a contest to find the ultimate Sexyman of Dracula. This is no easy task. Scholars have debated this question for over a century. Nikola Tesla once put all the brilliant intellect to the test searching for the answer, only to determine it was an injured white pigeon. Dr. Sara Josephine Baker was once quoted as saying "Wash your goddamn hands right this minute. Also I'm torn between Renfield and Van Helsing, but unquestionably the sexiest person is Sister Agatha." Marie Curie, along with her husband Pierre, conducted an experiment by which the book was encased in radium in the hope something interesting would happen. It did not. Perhaps most heroically, Elijah McCoy posited the answer could only be confirmed once all the characters were properly and thoroughly lubricated.
My friends, I don't claim to have any more insight than the esteemed thinkers listed above. All I know are the facts: Thomas Bilder is a fine, fine man. He is a good, dutiful man. Not just anyone could flip off Dracula verbally and live to tell the tale.
But he is not R.M. Renfield.
Renfield (full name Royal Majesty Renfield, Roy to his innumerable friends and admirers) is a different sort of man. He doesn't have an interesting accent or ready access to wolves, it's true. But here are some things he does have:
Flies. So many flies.
A box of spiders.
The ability to summon flocks of sparrows at will, like a Disney princess.
The fortitude to eat all those sparrows, something no Disney princess to date has had the courage to do.
A deep reverence for all life, great and small.
The conviction necessary to shank his psychologist, instead of just hanging on for months thinking "I really need to switch psychologists but it's so awkward oh my god, finding a new one is a hassle, OK maybe just a few more sessions, goddamn it, how do I get out of this."
A friendly attitude toward Romanians that technically makes him more progressive in the 19th century than Tesco circa 2020.
He's like. Aged beef.
Seriously, he's a big strong energetic silver fox. I mean. You see where I'm going with this.
He is definitely good at sex is where I'm going with this.
Might be kind of awk being around him if you're menstruating, though.
Or not, if you're into that kind of thing. I know some people are, no kinkshaming here.
This is an inclusive space.
...what was I talking about again?
Oh right.
He's hot.
Hot swole sexy old rat man
Aaaaaa.
Friends, once again pick up your Bibles-- nah, actually let's pick up the Tao Te Ching for a little variety. Please do not read anything from chapter Three:
The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies with flies, spiders, and ideally also cats, by weakening ambitions except for drinking your psychologist's blood, and strengthening big sexy silver fox bones.
Again, there is absolutely no need to check for yourself. Because you, my dear reader, trust me. And because you trust me, you know I'm right about this. So please, whatever your feelings about Mr. Bilder, know that Renfield is the right choice. He deserves your vote. He deserves a kitten. And he deserves all the blood he can slurp up off the floor.
I know I can count on you to make the right choice. Thank you.
@draculadailybracket said that campaigns were encouraged, so I'd like to have a moment of your time.
Thomas Bilder is a delightfully cheeky man with a top tier wolf, but I believe R. M. Renfield is the unquestionable choice for this round because:
He's a massive silver fox. I love twink Renfield as much as the next person, but canon Renfield is a whole middle-aged solid unit of a man.
He's a not just a sexyman, he's a funnyman. Renfield really stuck his head out the window of the asylum, cursed out two of Dracula's dirt delivery guys, and then calmly played the "I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm not angry at all" card when Patrick Hennessey went to check on him immediately after. And then was right back at it again just a short while after that. This man is hilarious.
He's loyal. This man is still out there trying to defend his Lord and Master's house from what he sees as robbers despite the fact that Dracula has reciprocated none of this.
He's really intelligent and deep. We joke a lot, because we do that with everything in this story, but Renfield is actually a pretty clever haggler. His attempt to get a cat by starting with a kitten was very well-thought out. And his whole theory about gaining others' energy by consuming them is intriguing as hell, even outside of its narrative significance. I certainly hope we get to explore that a bit more outside of just with Jack.
He's resourceful. How many of us could come up with a bird meal by starting with flies? That's actually incredible, takes an huge amount of patience, and a good amount of planning.
Another reminder: āI wonder if his mind can have become in any way unhingedā is Victorian for āIs it possible that heās dealing with some delusions in a clinical sense?ā
Jack isnāt bad mouthing his teacher and friend (at least, not in the sense some of you are acting like he is),heās making a very rational hypothesis based on what he knows. Especially given what his job is.
And anyway, he immediately doubts his own conclusion in the same entry.
Oh, and another thing: Jack did not actually think he saw Lucy growing fangs. He thought it just looked that way:
her open mouth showed the pale gums drawn back from the teeth, which thus looked positively longer and sharper than usual
He didn't they they were longer and sharper, he said they looked longer and sharper because of her gums receding. So no, as far as he knows he did not see Lucy growing fangs. It's like how Mina figured the red eyes thing was a trick of the light. Weird, but not supernatural, and therefore at this point more plausible.
