to define–

MAKE ME CHOOSE — @percyokonjos asks oliver marks or selwyn kane

actors are by nature volatile—alchemic creatures composed of incendiary elements, emotion and ego and envy. heat them up, stir them together, and sometimes you get gold. sometimes disaster.

MAKE ME CHOOSE — @percyokonjos asks oliver marks or selwyn kane

actors are by nature volatile—alchemic creatures composed of incendiary elements, emotion and ego and envy. heat them up, stir them together, and sometimes you get gold. sometimes disaster.

MAKE ME CHOOSE — @fahey asks these violent delights or if we were villains + @hcrror asks if we were villains or sorcery of thorns

                                                 Till this moment I never knew myself.

OLIVER MARKS  — If We Were Villains 

❝ You can justify anything if you do it poetically enough.❞

@storyseekers event 08 : favorite 2020 read  —  if we were villains

I’ll just casually drop this here–it’s a long (and good) read, but essentially, the author argues that:

Stoker wrote Dracula as a direct reaction to the Wilde trials

Many of Dracula’s characteristics actually echo Wilde as described to the trials, and Dracula’s lifestyle resembles an exaggerated version of precautions to hide homosexuality

Stoker is basically the pro-closeted 1890s alternative to Wilde’s flamboyancy, and that comes out in how he portrays Dracula and Jonathan Harker

Like if you look deeper into Stoker’s letters to Whitman, he’s practically obsessed with feeling “naturally secretive” and “reticent”

(Also he and Wilde had some weird personal rivalry going on, since Stoker married Wilde’s definitely-not-straight ex-fiancee, though later they were friendly…there’s a lot to unpack here)

So, arguably, Dracula was Stoker’s way of apologizing for his silence during Wilde’s trials.

Some highlights:

Wilde’s trial had such a profound effect on Stoker precisely because it fed Stoker’s pre-existing obsession with secrecy, making Stoker retrospectively exaggerate the secrecy in his own writings on male love.

It is difficult, Stoker admits, to speak openly about “so private a matter” as desire. In carefully calibrated language, Stoker asks forgiveness from those who might see that his silence is a sin-to those few nameless souls who know his secret affinity with Wilde.

Since Dracula is a dreamlike projection of Wilde’s traumatic trial, Stoker elaborated and distorted the evidence that the prosecutor used to convict Wilde. In particular, the conditions of secrecy necessary for nineteenth-century homosexual life–nocturnal visits, shrouded windows, no servants–become ominous emblems of Count Dracula’s evil.

Dracula…represents not so much Oscar Wilde as the complex of fears, desires, secrecies, repressions, and punishments that Wilde’s name evoked in 1895. Dracula is Wilde-as-threat, a complex cultural construction not to be confused with the historical individual Oscar Wilde.

tl;dr:

Stoker is actually too repressed to function

Oscar Wilde (especially his trials) absolutely influenced Stoker