An interpretation of Dracula from the perspective of someone who is confused on what the novel was trying to say 👍

So, I’ve just recently read *Dracula* and am a bit confused on what Stoker was trying to say. The main reason being I feel like whenever I came up with an interpretation, there’s something in the text that would contradict it (like saying Dracula was a representation of new ideas that the British detested at the time… except for the fact that Van Helsing and Co. also displayed traits of those those ideas as well). So, naturally, I just had to go on Reddit to post my interpretation and to obtain some other opinions:

I knew a big idea of the novel was good vs evil (even more specifically, purity vs. sin). However, I couldn’t exactly tell *what* he was saying was evil and what was good. At one point, like I said earlier, I felt Stoker was saying Dracula was a representation of the ideas that the British were rejecting at the time (sexuality, immigration, change in general), whilst also being a representation of the conservative British. I felt like he was basically saying the act of vampirism was a metaphor to what the conservative thought they’d “turn into” if they accepted these ideas (Lucy, containing a view of traditional marriage and home life, turns into a vampire (or gives into these new ideas) and dies. Then there’s Mina, who’s described as a “new woman”, also gets bitten, but survives). I thought the good guys going after Dracula was perhaps representation of trying to get rid of the stigma that these ideas were bad. However, when Mina got bit, she kept saying she was “unclean”. And when J. Harker and Van Helsing were being tempted by Dracula’s brides, they felt guilt / were disgusted when they snapped out of it (and the fact choice words by Stoker also constantly portrayed a repulsed feeling of the whole situation in general). That’s when I got confused. And if Dracula was supposed to represent those ideas, what were the good guys supposed to represent since, again, they already exhibited traits of rejecting the status quo (independence when it comes to Mina, and vulnerability with our male cast, not to mention the usage of modern tech)? The only difference is that these traits weren’t portrayed in a shameful or in a reprehensible light. So maybe they were also supposed to represent these new ideas, but in the view of the liberal British?

I really don’t know. At some point, I also thought it could be a satire of British society and how ridiculous it was (in Stoker’s view). Again, in this view, Dracula would be the representation of these new ideas, minus also being the representation of the conservative British. This could explain the repulsion when it came to being bitten, or of Dracula himself (or vampirism in general). Although, I don’t know how the good guys being “enlightened” would fit into this view. Perhaps irony?

Anyways, that’s kind of what I got from reading Dracula, though I’m not entirely sure how accurate it would be. That’s where the discussion part of this post would come in. What are y’all’s opinion on the novel and it’s theme(s)?

by IKnowWutYouDid