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.