#also if you're wondering yes this is absolutely why zemira rides a motorcycle

[corvidcrybaby]

Following up about that one anon’s mention of the theory that Dracula in the Hellsing universe may be more fiction than fact, what do you think actually happened in the events that the book took place? Do you think some parts of the story were true or made up, if so, what parts?

I think that Bram Stoker's novelization of the events in the Hellsing universe followed the same trend as most apocryphal interpretations of historical events - the barebones blueprint of the events are generally the same, but with some marked embellishments.

For one, this gives me a chance to talk about something I haven't seen anyone talk about regarding Alucard, and that's his outfit. We know he wears the coat that Abraham Van Helsing wore when he defeated Dracula back in the day - whether a sign of respect or a mark of his defeat, it's hard to say, but ultimately irrelevant. Mainly because it doesn't explain one thing: why does Alucard wear the hat?

When we see Abraham in the flashbacks, he doesn't wear a hat.

So where does it come from?

I think the answer is this: it's from Quincy Morris. Observe the following photos.

Now, as we can see here, there are a couple of members of the original team of hunters that bested Dracula back in the day who wear hats. One, we know for sure is Quincey. The other seems to be Jonathan Harker, although it can be hard to tell because we see multiple different styles of hats in the photos.

However, I think it's very telling that the bottom panel features a hat design on a dead Quincey that is very, very similar to Alucard's hat. It's not quite a cowboy hat, but it's damn close in design. And combined with the fact we know Alucard has a real hard-on for humans that are capable of killing him, plus the fact Quincey Morris is the guy who ACTUALLY gets the killing blow on Dracula in the novel, it leads me to wonder if the credit to Abraham van Helsing isn't skewed in some way - especially since we only see these events though Alucard's traumatized recollections of his defeat. Given that he's been a slave of the Hellsing family for over a century now, it perhaps adds up that this would be where much of his ire is directed. Hard to hate a man who's already dead, but perhaps that's why Alucard donned the hat, to intentionally thumb his nose at the Hellsings to remind them who REALLY got them their victory. It seems like a taunt he might indulge in.

Beyond this, at a push, I can't help but note that Alucard’s glasses resemble motorcycle goggles at a push, particularly with their yellow-orange tint. With this connection in mind, I'm reminded of the aesthetic continuity between the cowboy aesthetic and the modern biker aesthetic. Hell, motorcycles are even sometimes referred to as "iron horses." I can't help but wonder if Hirano is giving a wink to that here.

All told, I think that the events of the novel in the Hellsing-verse are generally accurate - I do think Dracula did a lot of what he was said to do, but I do think certain things, ESPECIALLY his appearance (hiya, gratuitous antisemitic caricature) were inventions of Stoker and his own biases and proclivities. Stoker was a WEIRD guy to boot. This, and one can quibble with the events of the novel and compare them with Alucard’s modern personality, which gets into questions of just how monstrous one thinks he is. The biggest offender to me is the scene where he feeds a live baby to his wives - would Alucard truly do something so comically vile? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps Dracula would, but Alucard wouldn't, and it's a new personality type of dealio.

This is by no means exhaustive, and one could easily write a whole scholarly essay on this (something I actually did do for a short essay assignment back when I was in higher education) but these are just some of my thoughts. Thank you for the ask!