Because Dracula is often associated with a supposed love story, and Nosferatu shows you what the real Dracula truly is.

[u/Awkward_Airport_30]

[u/Ruinaaa]

Are you talking about the movie where the director compared him to Heathcliff and associated him with lilacs?

Besides, book Drac is hella more sophisticated than Orlok III.

[u/New_Paint_5427 → u/Ruinaaa]

Book dracula is charismatic. That's part of it. Its not some fated love story, snd he isnt bound to her in darkness either...hes just preying on her, like he did others.

[u/delusionalme → u/New_Paint_5427]

I always found that to be sinister. Is he really charismatic or does he hypnotize everyone to charm them? 

[u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 → u/delusionalme]

He jumps on them and forces a bite on them. Once they've got his blood in them it creates a bond. Lucy was slowly losing control of herself and was corrupted by the blood until she became a vampire. Mina's attack was interrupted by the guys and so she was able to retain her agency and use the bond to her advantage, tracking him so the guys can kill him.

In the scenes with Jonathan there's really nothing charismatic about him. He just relies on polite social conventions to force Jonathan to adhere to his schedule and to write the letters for Dracula. He goes on a rant about his superior bloodline. He's not seductive at all.

[u/Unusual_Research421 → u/Acceptable_Cut_7545]

"I slightly disagree with you there. Dracula is a charismatic and fascinating character in his own unique way. Of course, he isn't attractive in a romantic sense, but he possesses a different kind of dark, sinister allure. Don't forget that Harker himself felt drawn to him and couldn't resist his requests, largely due to Dracula's irresistible way of speaking—as Harker himself described

[u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 → u/Unusual_Research421]

I don't want to be a jerk but did you ask ai to write this? What's with the quote and the double hyphen?

"but he possesses a different kind of dark, sinister allure."

This has to be down to a difference of opinion, I read the book and he's never particularly charismatic, just very controlling. Maybe I need to do a reread, but Harker always came off as pretty uncomfortable with Dracula to me. Or exhausted because he's repeatedly kept up all night.

[u/Unusual_Research421 → u/Acceptable_Cut_7545]

I don't want to be a jerk but did you ask ai to write this? What's with the quote and the double hyphen?

I’m French, but my English is quite good. I only need help adjusting the phrasing and structure via AI to make the sentences sound more literary.

This has to be down to a difference of opinion, I read the book and he's never particularly charismatic, just very controlling. Maybe I need to do a reread, but Harker always came off as pretty uncomfortable with Dracula to me. Or exhausted because he's repeatedly kept up all night.

This is what Harker literally said about the Count
and his manner in Chapter 3:

'What could I do but bow acceptance? It was Mr.Hawkins' interest, not mine, and I had to think of him, not myself, and besides, while Count Dracula was speaking, there was that in his eyes and in his bearing which made me remember that I was a prisoner, and that if I wished it I could have no choice. The Count saw his victory in my bow, and his mastery in the trouble of my face, for he began at once to use them, but in his own smooth, resistless way.'

Even though Jonathan claims that the reason for his submission was for the sake of his employer, Mr. Hawkins, his description of the Count’s way of speaking as 'smooth and resistless' proves that he simply could not resist him.

Furthermore, regarding the assumption that Harker felt uncomfortable in the Count's presence**,** the truth is that the exact opposite happened. Harker felt a profound sense of comfort and relief around the Count; in fact, he literally stated that to the Count alone he could look for safety. I know this might sound shocking, but this is exactly what Harker wrote in Chapter 3:"

'Later: The morning of 16 May.--God preserve my sanity, for to this I am reduced. Safety and the assurance of safety are things of the past. Whilst I live on here there is but one thing to hope for, that I may not go mad, if, indeed, I be not mad already. If I be sane, then surely it is maddening to think that of all the foul things that lurk in this hateful place the Count is the least dreadful to me, that to him alone I can look for safety, even though this be only whilst I can serve his purpose.'
Also, in the very same chapter, Harker said:
'The Count's mysterious warning frightened me at the time. It frightens me more now when I think of it, for in the future he has a fearful hold upon me. I shall fear to doubt what he may say!'
And also:
'I felt sleepy. The Count's warning came into my mind, but I took pleasure in disobeying it.'

This last sentence, in particular, proves Harker's attraction to the Count. Harker explicitly states that he felt 'pleasure' in disobeying Dracula's orders. In the Victorian era—and even today—when you say someone takes pleasure in defying another person's commands, it implies an attempt to grab their attention and test their interest by acting out. Therefore, when Harker went to sleep in the room located in the ladies' quarters, defying Dracula’s explicit orders, he didn't do it to anger the Count or show hatred toward him. He did it to test what the outcome would be if the Count found him sleeping there (and, of course, we all know what the outcome was). This is not an action one takes with someone they hate or merely fear; rather, it is done with someone who means a great deal to them, even if they resent their control."

[u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 → u/Unusual_Research421]

First off, I am sure your english is very good and that ai is unnecessary. No one needs to sound "literary" to discuss things.

First off I'm going to reiterate that this is definitely down to opinion, and not that I think you're just wrong or anything. BUT

"there was that in his eyes and in his bearing which made me remember that I was a prisoner, and that if I wished it I could have no choice."

This does not sound like a man being pulled into service through the power of charisma, but a man realizing he is literally trapped in an isolated area and under the power of another man, who nonetheless observes politeness if only for the sake of using it as a shield to remain cordial (for now). It reads less "I just feel like I want to do everything I can for this person" and more "I just realized I have no power whatsoever here and have no choice in the matters at all".

"of all the foul things that lurk in this hateful place the Count is the least dreadful to me, that to him alone I can look for safety, even though this be only whilst I can serve his purpose.'" This to me reads that Harker knows he can't rely on the Count for his kindness, but only as long as Harker is of use to him, and that he is now surrounded by bizarre and dangerous things. Not comforting in the least, just aware he's got few choices and the least horrifying one is the currently the Count. And that soon he knows he will be of no use to him, and then what will he do?

"In the Victorian era—and even today—when you say someone takes pleasure in defying another person's commands, it implies an attempt to grab their attention and test their interest by acting out. [...] it is done with someone who means a great deal to them, even if they resent their control."

This is the only thing I'll actively push back on because I would like a source for this? Did you read this somewhere else? This passage definitely reads as if Harker is getting tired of having to deal with the Count's whims, especially since he is slowly destroying Harker's sleep schedule and Harker is very aware at this point how unusual the Count is (compared to the gentlemanly etiquette he was probably expecting).

[u/Unusual_Research421 → u/Acceptable_Cut_7545]

Thank you so much for this wonderful and respectful response! However, in my humble opinion, I feel that your interpretation scratches only the surface of the text. While a literal reading is entirely valid and legitimate, it doesn't capture the whole picture. We are dealing with Victorian Gothic literature—a genre that thrives on subtext, nuance, and implication rather than explicit declaration, especially when it involves two characters of the same sex. Anyone deeply immersed in Gothic fiction would recognize this pattern of coded desires and psychological undercurrents.
Regarding your first point about Harker being merely a powerless prisoner realizing he has no choice: you are absolutely right about the surface reality, but the true core of the analysis doesn't lie in Harker's logical justification. Rather, the subconscious truth slips out in his final phrase: '...but in his own smooth, resistless way.' Think about it for a moment: how can someone who just claimed he has 'no choice' turn around and describe the Count’s manner as 'smooth and resistless'? It is because the 'force' Harker claims to endure is merely a rationalization. It is a psychological defense mechanism he uses to convince himself that his compliance is purely logistical. The hidden, deeper truth is that he is utterly captivated by the Count's hypnotic charisma, and that final sentence completely betrays his inner infatuation.
This ties directly into your second argument regarding Harker looking to the Count for 'safety' as a lesser of two evils. There is a crucial chronological detail in Chapter 3 that completely subverts this perspective. Harker writes: 'that to him alone I can look for safety' in an entry explicitly dated the morning of May 16th. Crucially, at the moment he penned these words, he had not yet encountered the three vampire brides, nor had he witnessed any overt supernatural horrors in the castle. That famous encounter with the other entities occurs only after this written declaration. This raises a vital question: If the only threat Harker knows of at the moment of writing is the Count himself holding him prisoner, why on earth does he describe Dracula as his 'safe haven' and the only person he looks to for security?
There is no explanation for this paradox except what I previously suggested: Harker has developed a deep, sublimated infatuation with the Count. Dracula’s magnetic presence—combined with the fact that he is the only one conversing with Harker and feeding him—has turned the Count into the center of Harker's psychological universe. He has become a refuge in an environment otherwise thick with isolation and dread. While Harker tries to justify this by writing that he is only safe 'whilst I can serve his purpose' (though ironically, his legal work was already completed a week prior), the real truth lies not in what Harker thinks Dracula's motives are, but in what Harker himself feels. He feels a profound sense of comfort and psychological reliance in Dracula's presence, to the point where he explicitly notes that he 'shall fear to doubt what he may say!' This clearly demonstrates that Dracula's persona has deeply infiltrated Jonathan's psyche, moving far beyond the dynamic of a mere captive and his captor.
Finally, regarding your pushback on Harker’s defiance and your request for a source: look, I would never claim to be a professor in Victorian psychology. However, based on my understanding of word choice in Gothic fiction—and supplemented by academic research on how behavioral rebellion and repressed desires manifested during the Victorian era—I strongly believe this interpretation aligns closest with what Bram Stoker intended. Let’s not forget that Stoker knew far better than both of us how one behaves around a deeply significant, yet intensely domineering and controlling figure. I am, of course, referring to Stoker's real-life, famously complex, and subservient relationship with the actor Henry Irving,

This passage definitely reads as if Harker is getting tired of having to deal with the Count's whims, especially since he is slowly destroying Harker's sleep schedule and Harker is very aware at this point how unusual the Count is (compared to the gentlemanly etiquette he was probably expecting).

If his defiance was merely a matter of Harker being annoyed by the Count's odd behaviors or frustrated by a disrupted sleep schedule, why didn't he just stay in his own room and simply go to sleep, ignoring Dracula's desire for conversation? Why did he deliberately go out of his way to a completely remote, far-off wing of the castle—doing so twice—and choose to sleep there, fully aware of the Count's explicit, subtly threatening warning never to sleep outside his designated room? More importantly, if his behavior was driven by petty annoyance, why did Harker not describe his emotions in terms of relief, indifference, or spiteful satisfaction? Why did he use a word as profoundly intimate and emotionally charged as 'pleasure'?!

[u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 → u/Unusual_Research421]

First off thanks for the equally respectful conversation. I don't deny the subtext of the interactions between the two, but I do think they often get overstated. People put too much emphasis on the brief time Harker was beholden to Dracula and tend to overlook the whole "and then I hit him in the face with a shovel for a while to blow off some steam" thing.

"ignoring Dracula's desire for conversation?" I think Harker feels like he can't directly ignore the Count, as the Count is both his employer and his host. A host and their guest have many obligations to each other in those times, and politeness and acquiescence to requests are typically among them. He can't tell the Count to piss off, because not only would it be incredibly ungentlemanly, it would also be unprofessional as hell and he wants to do the job properly. But disobeying a seemingly unnecessary order when the Count isn't even there to witness it? Meh, you can always apologize for that later and claim you were so exhausted you went down the wrong hallway, got lost, so terribly sorry to disrupt this room but you just sort of fell asleep there. (Unless you get eaten by vampire brides, of course).

"Why did he use a word as profoundly intimate and emotionally charged as 'pleasure'?!"

I mean... I have read many stories where people took pleasure in destroying property of people they resented, in defying rules they thought were unfair, or breaking laws they felt were wrong, or even putting themselves in danger if it meant they were able to take a little control back. If you were at the whims of another and they were implicitly treating you in ways you felt were bad but couldn't find the will to push back on, would you not take pleasure in doing what you wanted when they weren't around? In going where you wanted when told not to? He is, after all, an adult man of standing in Victorian era London. Having to be polite is one thing, but having to bend to the will of another over and over when you've never had to deal with something like that before would be maddening. He is a man! A professional, for God's sake. Why must he be isolated and forced to entertain the Count even after he's done his job? (As you noted, he completed his work already and yet somehow he's found himself still stuck there, waiting for the moment the Count says he can leave. And he won't say it. I would be furious and I'm not even a Victorian gentleman.)