AHC: Jane Austen's *Dracula*

What should be noted about Stoker is that he revived the vampire genre. It was a literary trend in the early 19th century, grew stale as tastes shifted towards realism, and was then taken up again at the end of the century. Austen writing about vampires wouldn't have been exceptional, as they weren't too uncommon in literature of her time. What gave Dracula its impact was that it came out at a time when everyone thought the vampire genre was dead (undead, undead, undead). Writing it in Austen's time would just have it be one work out of many.
 
I’m quite taken with the idea of a Pride and Prejudice in which Darcy comes to suspect Mr Bingley of being a vampire.
 
Last edited:
The 'mirror' part of the legend may have a Greek origin in that a mirror was thought to reflect the image of the soul - hence why breaking one was supposedly 7 years bad luck as well.

A Houppelande very much looks like a high-collar robe in some ways and was a coat of wealthy Italians in the 1400s...(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houppelande)

Stoker was not the first to delve back into the vampire genre after the repeated attempts in the medical community to debunk the idea but he was the most successful.
 
Wouldn't the modern representation of vampires ITTL be a little different from the OTL one? I heard ours owes a lot to Stoker's Dracula, for instance vampires having fangs or no shadow/reflection in mirrors. The last two sometimes appear in folklore but it isn't a typically vampire trait.

Retractable fangs are actually credited with Hammer Studios movie take on Dracula in the 1950s where Governor Tarkin Peter Cushing is Van Helsing and Harker ends up a vampire
 
Apparently "Dracul" is used in modern Romanian to refer to the devil and this may have misled Wilkinson.

About Stoker and Wilkinson, , see my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ioning-of-hungary.481721/page-2#post-20079273:

***

BTW, it has been persuasively (at least to me) argued by Elizabeth Miller that Stoker's Dracula was *not* based on the historical Vlad Tepes, that probably all Stoker knew about the Voivode was from *An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia *(1820) by William Wilkinson, in which " The name “Dracula” appears just three times, two of which more accurately refer to the father (Vlad Dracul). What attracted Stoker was a footnote attached to the third occurrence: “Dracula in the Wallachian language means Devil. The Wallachians were, at that time, as they are at present, used to give this as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous either by courage, cruel actions, or cunning” (19). That Stoker considered this important is evident in that he copied into his own notes “DRACULA in Wallachian language means DEVIL.” The three references to “Dracula” in Wilkinson’s text, along with the footnote, are the only occurrences of the name in all of the sources that we know that Stoker consulted.

"Stoker’s debt to Wilkinson is generally acknowledged, but a number of points are often overlooked: Wilkinson refers only to “Dracula” and “Voïvode,” never “Vlad,” never “Vlad Tepes” or “the Impaler”; furthermore there are no specific references to his atrocities. It is no mere co-incidence that the same paucity of information applies to the text of Dracula. Yet the popular theory is that Stoker knew much more than what he read in Wilkinson; that his major sources were the Hungarian professor Arminius Vambéry, and readings in the British Museum." She says that while Vambery and Stoker did have a couple of conversations, there is no evidence that Dracula came up in them, and that Stoker probably did not even know that the Voivode Dracula was named Vlad. "Another consequence of the insistence on connecting the two Draculas is the temptation to criticize Stoker for inaccurate “history.” Why, some ask, did he make Dracula a Transylvanian Count rather than a Wallachian Voivode? Why was his castle situated in the Borgo Pass instead of at Poenari? Why is Count Dracula a “boyar,” a member of the nobility which Vlad continuously struggled with? Why does Stoker make Dracula a “Szekely,” descended from Attila the Hun, when the real Dracula was a Wallachian of the Basarab family? There is a very simple answer to these questions: Vlad Tepes is Vlad Tepes, while Count Dracula is Count Dracula." http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/divorce.html
Actually, at the time, I wrote an article based on the fact that Dracula-Vampire is not a Romanian governor. Actually, the second sentence - “Laszlo Dracul was born in the family of the Hungarian sekler Andras, a valiant warrior and an ardent Catholic who, for his services to the crown, was made a knight of the Order of the Dragon in 1434 by the King of Hungary Sigismund of Luxembourg, for which he received the nickname" Dracul ", that is "Dragon", like the Wallachian prince Vlad. "
 
Actually, at the time, I wrote an article based on the fact that Dracula-Vampire is not a Romanian governor. Actually, the second sentence - “Laszlo Dracul was born in the family of the Hungarian sekler Andras, a valiant warrior and an ardent Catholic who, for his services to the crown, was made a knight of the Order of the Dragon in 1434 by the King of Hungary Sigismund of Luxembourg, for which he received the nickname" Dracul ", that is "Dragon", like the Wallachian prince Vlad. "

Could Dracula be a reference to son of (Vlad II) Dracul? Literally son of the (member of the Order of the) Dragon?


Another esoteric possibility, albeit farfetched, would be to send Vlad Dracula to a different Transylvania as it was known in Austen's time now mostly known as Kentucky. Given the time frame, he could go almost anywhere in the state (especially the SE portion like McCreary County or Pike County) and not be disturbed.

 
Last edited:
I’m quite taken with the idea of a Pride and Prejudice in which Darcy comes to suspect Mr Bingley of being a vampire.

I was about to say the other way round, but though Darcy would make for a better Vampire in my humble opinion, Bingley would never suspect anything.

This brings me back to the biggest Pride and Prejudice mystery, how did the two of them ever became friends?


Back to Jane Austen's Dracula, this would surely butterfly away Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. What a loss.
 
I was about to say the other way round, but though Darcy would make for a better Vampire in my humble opinion, Bingley would never suspect anything.

This brings me back to the biggest Pride and Prejudice mystery, how did the two of them ever became friends?


Back to Jane Austen's Dracula, this would surely butterfly away Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. What a loss.

Not necessarily, if Pride and Prejudice gets published and much of the rest of OTL remains it might not get butterflied at all - perhaps even made earlier?
 
Wouldn't the modern representation of vampires ITTL be a little different from the OTL one? I heard ours owes a lot to Stoker's Dracula, for instance vampires having fangs or no shadow/reflection in mirrors. The last two sometimes appear in folklore but it isn't a typically vampire trait.

No reflection in the mirror build on the fact that mirrors used silver alloys as a reflective media, and silver was seen as a weapon against the supernatural.
 
Yes but were you engaged for the proper 5 to 7 years before consumating the relationship?

What about Mr and Mrs Bennett being the "head" of a vampire coven that styles themselves as their "daughters". Mrs Bennett's eagerness/pushiness is because the girls are in need of food bags rather than husbands?
 
Wouldn't the modern representation of vampires ITTL be a little different from the OTL one? I heard ours owes a lot to Stoker's Dracula, for instance vampires having fangs or no shadow/reflection in mirrors. The last two sometimes appear in folklore but it isn't a typically vampire trait.

OTL modern vampires are most heavily influenced via the film Nosferatu (1922). That's the source of vampires being killed by sunlight.
 
What should be noted about Stoker is that he revived the vampire genre. It was a literary trend in the early 19th century, grew stale as tastes shifted towards realism, and was then taken up again at the end of the century. Austen writing about vampires wouldn't have been exceptional, as they weren't too uncommon in literature of her time. What gave Dracula its impact was that it came out at a time when everyone thought the vampire genre was dead (undead, undead, undead). Writing it in Austen's time would just have it be one work out of many.

Sheridan Le Fanu says hi.
 
Well.... Have you read "Selene - the Vampire City" by Paul Féval ? In the novel - it has one of the famous Gothic horror writers ( Ann Radcliffe ) as a vampire hunter... but at the last minute a mysterious man on a white horse saves the day -> none other than Lord Wellington fresh from the Battle of Waterloo.
Well, given Austen's sens of humour and irony, if she starts writing vampire novels, it could lead to a whole trend of novels written in that style - bitingly ironic and comic. So Féval could write earlier and more novels like his Vampire City.
 
Jane Austen was a very successful writer of comedies of manners and opposed to "enthusiasm." For her to write a vampire novel, it needs to be

1. very early on when conceivably she could have had an interest in writing a gothic novel; or

2. satirical, like with Northanger Abbey, where she's making fun of the vampire novel genre, which probably means its not a real vampire, just a delusion some silly girl has; or

3. part of some major life crisis and/or change. Austen OTL was part of the rationalist, urbane Anglican tradition. Perhaps if she becomes a Methodist or some other kind of 'enthusiast' as part of a major life crisis? Or perhaps she gets married and spends time overseas?
 
Jane Austen was a very successful writer of comedies of manners and opposed to "enthusiasm." For her to write a vampire novel, it needs to be

1. very early on when conceivably she could have had an interest in writing a gothic novel; or

2. satirical, like with Northanger Abbey, where she's making fun of the vampire novel genre, which probably means its not a real vampire, just a delusion some silly girl has; or

3. part of some major life crisis and/or change. Austen OTL was part of the rationalist, urbane Anglican tradition. Perhaps if she becomes a Methodist or some other kind of 'enthusiast' as part of a major life crisis? Or perhaps she gets married and spends time overseas?
Perhaps she casts the vampire as a metaphor for good and bad about 'tradition' and conservative nobility which drain heavily from the working class but actually provide a benefit when they want to? Maybe a figure like Nicholas Kanabos who rejected leadership if his country and absolute power then comes to realize its benefits over the next six centuries?
 

Kaze

Banned
Well, given Austen's sens of humour and irony, if she starts writing vampire novels, it could lead to a whole trend of novels written in that style - bitingly ironic and comic. So Féval could write earlier and more novels like his Vampire City.

My second sentences was my intent: "So... you could have her do a Selene thing where her self-insert DOES get into Wellington's pants (or the reasonable look-alike) "
Basically, she beats Féval to the publisher with her vampire story where her self-insert in her Northanger Abbey, The Watsons, etc style story where the heroine is involved with a love triangle between "vampire" and the "Wellington" (reasonable look alike) - the story ends with her with the Wellington and the Vampire with a steak through his heart.
 
Apologies, couldnt resist trying a bit of Austen pastiche!

'I am certain,' babbled Mrs Fotherington, 'Certain that the good Count would look most favourably, yes most favourably, on the proposal that you and your sister take the cottage on his lands, Miss Linstock. I propose we ask him directly!'
Miss Linstock, who, to her credit, had neither made such a proposal nor indeed any effort to engage Mrs Fotherington in conversation, smiled prettily and reached for the teapot.
'How kind, Mrs Fotherington, but there really is no-'
'Nonsense! I am set upon it my dear, quite, quite set. Indeed, I am to venture to the good Count this very day, this very day! A good man, a private man for all he is of, well, for all he is not English, but a title is a title! The country air around these parts does him good, I fancy, for his hair looks darker and his skin younger than when he came. And with this curious illness afflicting the villagers, too!'
'Perhaps, Mrs Fortherington, we might consult the object of your charity before the benefactor?'
all heads turned at these words. Miss Kington leant across to Lucy, noting her interest int he stranger as he strode in, removing his gloves by the fingertips and casting them aside intot he waiting hands of a footman.
'I see Colonel Fitzalan is returned fromt he wars; they say he has a duke for an uncle, at least two estates, and a fervent dislike of London society.'
Lucy allowed herself a sip of tea.
'And, I think, a rather haughty manner?'
Miss Kington laughed.
'he has a direct way, it is true, but i hear he is a superb dancer.'
Lucy smiled.
'Who is this Count, anyway? I go abroad with the regiment to find my home colonised by gossips, my old neighbour mysteriously absent, a curious malaise afflicting the poor folk, and a foreign Count in residence?'
Col Fitzalan gave a curt bow as Lucy stood.
'you must forgive me, Colonel. I am Lucy Linstock. Your cousin invited me and my sister to stay following our family difficulty.'
Fitzalan observed her impassively.
'My cousin has a way of collecting strays, Miss Linstock. I hope you will not be made a pet of.'
 
Last edited:
Top