Thread by @ChrisBrosnahan

Been thinking about Dracula and what, in the novel, the Count's plan actually was before it gets rudely interrupted by the good and wholesome Scooby gang. And it's a nasty, effective one.

First off, if you haven't read the book, read the book. It's an absolute belter, and enormously fun. And there's never been an adaptation that nails it.

Especially since Bram Stoker's Dracula, the idea of Dracula pursuing the image of his lost tends to be portrayed as part of the reason he travels to the UK. Crossing oceans of time and all that. But it's wrong.

Dracula is a warlord. He's planning to conquer, with patience and ambition as his two main tools. And his plan... is a good one. It almost works.

In terms of ambition, Dracula has to sleep in the earth. And it has to be the earth where he died. He doesn't have to sleep in a coffin filled with earth - that's his innovation. It let's him escape his natural confinement.

And he doesn't just bring over one coffin with him. He brings over 50 and places them in different parts of London, to give himself a freedom in one of the largest, most modern cities in the world.

Dracula is patient. He's bought up properties, he's planned this for a long time. And it may seem like he does almost nothing when he gets to London, but bear with me.

First off, it's reasonably clear he's a little overwhelmed by London, but he's still operating quickly. He feeds on Lucy, killing her and enslaving her. It takes time, too.

But it's what Lucy does next that's the key to Dracula's plan, I think. Her prey isn't her list of admirers. It's children.

As the 'Bloofer Lady' Lucy *immediately* starts feeding on multiple children. She's staked before she actually kills any of them.

Earlier in the novel, we get Dracula stealing a baby to feed to his brides, so this is the first time I've thought about this part of the plan. But the kids aren't food this time. They're going to be turned.

Dracula's plan was to weaponise kids. Each one like little vampire bombs in multiple households, capable of turning their entire families.

Let's assume it takes time and effort for Dracula to turn someone. After all, he only does it once in the novel and almost a second time.

But Lucy? She's turning multiple kids at the same time. And each one of those would likely do the same.

Each kid infects their family and friends, each of whom then goes out to infect others. Exponential growth.

Remember the computer program in The Thing, projecting what would happen if the alien reached a populated area? Its that.

Dracula's biggest mistake is pride - he's so pissed at Van Helsing, etc, that he goes after Mina next, which leads to his downfall. He then retreats, to work on his plan and come back again with a better one.

Van Helsing makes the point that "In this enlightened age... the doubting of wise men would be his greatest strength". And he's completely right - it being a modern city worked in Dracula's favour.

Look, Dracula's big gamble is this - that it would take so long for people to understand and believe what was happening that he'd be in an advantageous position by the time they did.

And he's right! The newspaper writes about the Bloofer Lady and children going missing as a point of amusement. And mentions them being bitten as proof that Hampstead Heath needs to have fewer rats.

In the old country, Dracula is relatively weak. When Jonathan gets there, everyone is constantly vigilant. They all believe in vampires and know how to handle them.

Dracula is scary enough that there's basically a stalemate/truce situation going on with the local population. We can see this because Dracula steals and murders a baby and they don't storm it and burn the castle down.

Now, this brings about the biggest flaw in my argument. Dracula and the brides don't turn the kid he stole - they just eat it.

But if we assume that the villagers know what's going on, there's an even nastier reason for that.

You're in an area where people know what vampires are and take precautions. They're brutally effective at it, because Dracula and his brides are mostly stuck in the castle, starving.

So my guess is this. In an area like that, if a kid is being fed on and going to be turned into a vampire? They just kill the fucking kid. Problem solved.

So when Dracula steals a child, might as well just feast on it. It's not going to be useful. And he's dangerous enough that the villagers basically shrug and go 'oh well, could have been worse' and don't, y'know, storm the damn castle.

London, though? London literally laughs off missing kids in the society pages because they're doing impressions of the Bloofer Lady when they come back.

And the reason Van Helsing and the rest of the Scooby gang chase Dracula when he retreats? Because they know what future generations will be even less well-equipped to handle Dracula the next time round.

Now, if Dracula had gone to another part of London and created another lieutenant, rather than getting petty and going for Mina? That same pattern would have started again, even more quickly.

I think of it kind of like something sending out blips. Dracula can't create many lieutenants, because it takes time. But once he does, each one infects loads of kids, who then go on to infect loads of others. That would be fast. Before long...

That's why Dracula made for an effective warlord. A fast attack, weaponising children, and getting to the point of victory before the enemy even knows they're fighting.

And that was the plan without ever having visited London. That was entirely theory.

The second he realises the plan hasn't worked? He retreats to be patient, analyse why it went wrong, add in his new first-hand knowledge of the area, and then try again when nobody expects it.

Thanks to twitter being shit now, threads are now lousy for engagement, so this was as much me getting this out of my head as anything else. If you've read this far, though, what do you think? Does that sound like the plan?

Oh! Dracula's other mistake! Lucy.

Right, the whole thing with Lucy in the movies is that she tends to be overtly sexualised. Especially in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

But in the book, it's less of a thing. She's not enjoying having multiple suitors - she's embarrassed and genuinely worried about hurting the ones she turns down.

And they're not even dicks about it. They're genuinely like 'well, if we can be friends, then that's awesome because we all adore you" and congratulate the guy she chooses.

So when Dracula goes after Lucy, he degrades someone genuinely good and wholesome. It's not a possessive thing or a jealous thing - they're all genuinely outraged that he's done this to someone as wonderful as Lucy.

Yes, victorian standards of purity and fetishisation of it, yes, patriarchy, yes beautiful white lady, yes, swarthy foreign menace daring to touch her, etc. Not saying unproblematic.

But on the page, the Scooby gang are so wholesome, it's unbelievable. I love them

Finally, I campaign for a film version to include Dracula's unfashionable straw hat.

https://twitter.com/ChrisBrosnahan/status/1283066065086447616?s=19

Have another bit of awesome Dracula stuff with different versions of hot 70s Dracula.

https://twitter.com/ChrisBrosnahan/status/1330527797735985155?s=19

While I entirely agree, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" is such a good line, I'm not surprised they hung a movie off it.

https://twitter.com/thecorlew/status/1649834498895368192?t=RuXynxdyEp7WIWS76TwUew&s=19

Also, enough people have mentioned that @DraculaDaily (set up by @matt_kirkland) restarts next week that I should too - I followed it last time and it's amazing.