Dracula
A place for general discussion and questions
It really bothers me when characters do what they obviously shouldn't. For instance, in scary movies when its dark and stormy and they HAVE to go into the dark and gloomy house. Who in their RIGHT MINDS would do this?? Wouldn't Johnathan have more common sense and heed all of the warnings given to him by the townspeople in the begining? I fing this trend very odd, and know that I, myself, would never have gone had a complete stranger sunk to their knees and begged me not to go while a crowd of others were murmering words such as werewolf, vampire, hell, witch, and Satan. Comments?
Charlotte
It really bothers me when characters do what they obviously shouldn't. For instance, in scary movies when its dark and stormy and they HAVE to go into the dark and gloomy house. Who in their RIGHT MINDS would do this?? Wouldn't Johnathan have more common sense and heed all of the warnings given to him by the townspeople in the begining? I fing this trend very odd, and know that I, myself, would never have gone had a complete stranger sunk to their knees and begged me not to go while a crowd of others were murmering words such as werewolf, vampire, hell, witch, and Satan. Comments?
Charlotte
posted by L Lazarow | 6:50 PM
26 Comments:
Char,
I totally agree with you. I mean I think the writers are trying to make us feel this way, otherwise they wouldn't have made it so frustrating to read. But that's a big element of the horror genre I think, because there have to be opportunities missed and risks taken in order for the story to go anywhere horror-ish. But it is really annoying, not only that Harker didnt ditch Dracula in the first place, but especially after he got there and saw what a FREAK he was, he didn't even try to leave. That's what really got to me. But like I said, I think in a way it has to be like that, as annoying as it is.
This might be a better topic for class, but I figure I'll bring it up here anyway. I did not completely understand the history of the Count (when he was human) (chapter 18, I think). The way Van Helsing describes it seems a bit abstract:
He was Voivode Dracula, who "won his name against the Turk," and he was the "cleverest and most cunning, the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest'."
The rest, I get--how he learned from the Devil and such. This led me to the question: Since Dracula is a fairly human-like embodiment of Satan (and is carrying out his work), are the guys of the Van Helsing team then carrying out God's work? I don't know if such a blatant comparison was intended, but I guess that's one way you could see the story from a broader perspective.
Something else interesting I noted was that Mina, being a woman, is not fit to do the work, yet she made the work of the men possible by fitting all the pieces together (1) by adding her story to the other accounts and (2) by typing all the stories and ordering them chronologically. The men depend on her because she gives them a reason/will to continue. This is a strange two-sided portrayal of Mina. She's a woman and therefore frail, but she's also the one whom the men find strength in.
Another item...
Van Helsing says some very deep things that seem to me just a result of his not completely using proper English, especially since none of the other characters speak with such profundity. One example: "It has given us opportunity to cry 'check' in some ways in this chess game, which we play for the stake of human souls." While most readers would be less likely to understand the train of thought of someone speaking English using adapted sentence structures, it seems the opposite with Van Helsing's speech. In a way, he expresses himself better in English than do the native English speakers.
Just a few things. In response to charlotte, I too agree with you although I understand some sacrifices have to be made for the point of carrying on the plot. The only real instance which bothered me was when Dracula's ghostly form entered Mina's room as a fog and stood right next to her. She said she thought it was a dream?? With all the stuff going on around even this seems like way too far of a stretch!
Also another background thing that goes along with the whole vampire lore/dracula is the idea of having to invite a vampire in. In a twist on this I was watching the history channel (AMAZING) and there was a special on Vlaad the Impaler (Dracula) awhile ago and there was one instance where dracula invited a whole bunch, like hundreds, of his supposed enemies to dinner and at the conclusion of the night he had them all impaled on stakes outside of his castle. He carried on this tradition with conquered foes. This just seems ironic to me as he invited them over and killed them where as in vampire lore the vampire must be invited in in order to do the killing it so desires. There were a bunch of other comparisons that added up like the lore that vlaad literally bathed in the blood of his enemies and that his supposed grave was dug up to see if he was there and his body was missing. These parts are not backed up though with facts and proof.
again that was pat, I haven't mastered this blog even by the end of the year
Pat, I have to agree with you that the History Channel is AMAZING. I saw that one too. I watched another documentary about vampires on the History Channel a few days ago and took some notes--woohoo! Here they are:
-First vampire stories originated in China and India. In China they thought if you didn't bury your ancestors properly, they would drain your blood by touching you with their finger. In India, the Hindu goddess Kali drank another god's blood in battle. Another mythical woman related to vampires (it wasn't clear to me exactly how) was Lilith, Adam's first wife, who left Adam after fighting about sexual positions--she refused to be underneath him. heheh. She went to the desert and killed the children she had with devils. (This reminded me of Dracula's wives killing the baby in the castle.)
-Tales about people having sex with the undead were very common in Europe. THere was one about a Parisian who had sex with a seemingly alive, female stranger and woke up to find her in an advanced state of decay in his bed. These stories served as warnings to kids to not be promiscuous (which still was a major issue when Stoker wrote his sexualized story.)
-Ignorance about death led to western European stories about vampires. People were buried alive, they came out of their graves, and people assumed they died and came back as the undead. The signs of being a vampire can be explained by modern medicine. Blood dripping from the mouth results from gases pushing liquids out; evaporating water in body makes nails appear to have grown since burial; bloating is part of the normal decay process, not from being engorged of blood.
-Stoker's book was going to be called Count Vampire until he read up on Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) and took the name. Dracula is actually a national hero in Romania, because he stopped the Turkish invasion (even though he accomplished this by impaling them). This book was a breakthrough in the vampire image, which went from the ugly monster to the sexy one.
-Stoker used bits and pieces of the true account of Elizabeth Bathory, a Hungrarian countess, for his book. She set up a fictionary finishing school to lure peasant girls to her castle. She slaughtered over 600 of them to drink and bathe in their blood, thinking that the blood of virgins would restore her youthful beauty. Her story might account for why vampires (and thus Stoker's Dracula) are associated with Transylvania, restoration of youth, and are usually of the upper class (above the law, can't be stopped).
The other day in class we were talking about the balance aspect in Dracula, and i've noticed that some of the women in the story represent this same balance. The character of Lucy embodies it, because as she transforms from a pure, innocent, traditional Victorian woman into a raging creature of sexual desire (vampire), she is going from extreme to extreme. There is no balance in her character, and the necessary end is her death. Mina's character, however, is more moderate, and is a symbol of strength throughout the story while still at the same time managing to be lady-like and proper. Maybe Stoker is suggesting that this is how women should act? Just a thought.
Relating to what Charlotte and Carly were talking about and also to a discussion from class the other day; when Harker enters Dracula’s castle it was avoidable and it was his choice. Through Dracula’s inviting him into his home and him accepting, Harker invites the vampire into his life. The passage: “Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own free will!” He made no motion of stepping to meet me, but stood like a statue, as though his gesture of welcome had fixed him into stone. The instant however I stepped over the threshold, he moved impulsively forward…
This description just seemed to really emphasize the point.
Also I find it hilarious yet at the same time disconcerting that Arthur compared his giving blood to Lucy to their pending marriage. She turned down two other men for him and yet because they also gave blood, in his eyes they have married her as well, and have been in just as close contact with her as he.
If any of this was brought up in class, sorry for repetition, but wasn’t there.
Char,
I also agree with you. The beginning of the book as Jonathon is headed towards Dracula's castle is so far-fetched, yet isn't that the point of fiction, particularly science fiction? I found the first few chapters to be very interesting in that they seem to be very stereotypical horror story beginnings to us (i.e. dark night, scary sounds, shady figure opens the door to a dark castle, etc). This of course was hardly stereotypical for Stoker. I'm guessing we can credit Stoker for these impossible horror story beginnings. It seems more contemporary horror stories and movies are based on Stoker's model.
Molly,
I'm really glad you brought up the issue of Stoker's female characters. Initially, Mina and Lucy seemed very similar to me -very proper, intelligent, moral, etc. Lucy, however, seems to be thrilled with the fact that so many men are seeking her hand in marriage - clearly, she isn't as "pure" as Mina, who is married and lives a respectable life as a devout wife. Personally, I felt a lot more sympathy for Mina throughout the novel as opposed to Lucy. In Frankenstein, Elizabeth was killed to hurt Victory, is their any justification for/ reasoning behind Lucy's death? It may be a strecth, but did Dracula feel more drawn to Lucy because she isn't as pure as Mina?
In the Borders Classics edition of Dracula, there is a quote by Charlotte Stoker (Bram's mother addressing her son) which reads "No book since Shelley's Frankenstein or indeed any other has come near yours in originality or terror - Poe is nowhere..In its terrible excitement it should make a widespread reputation and much money for you." I also read that when Stoker died and his prized possessions were auctioned off, one of the items was his copy of Frankenstein. Anyone see any similarities/references to Frankenstein within Dracula? I'm having a hard time drawing a significant parallel.
Char, Ruby, and the others,
I have to disagree with you. If it is cold, rainy, and your hungry, of course you don't WANT to go into the creepiest house on the block. On the other hand, you are miserable and, in the case of Harker, in the middle of nowhere. I'm pretty sure Cingular/AT&T doesn't provide cell service in Transylvania, either despite having the largest digital network. Was he just supposed to walk back the entire way the carriage carried him? He would have probably fallen ill and been passed out on the side of the road and then been killed that way, not to mention the fact that he is a business man who has work to be done.
Some modern teen-horror flicks do not just involve spooky houses, though. I don't know the title, but in one the keep getting killed in mundane places: tanning booths, hardware stores, gyms, etc. In the end, I think it is just up to the author to choose their situation. Plus, we should probably consider that that Dracula set the PRECIDENT (sp), rather than just followed the archetype.
First, I don't think the beginning of the book seems all that far-fetched. Jonathan felt he had an obligation to a political figure (I suppose counts are important) and overlooked the warnings of the Transylvanians as mere superstitions (I know we mentioned this in class).. a few bloggers have said they would never have ignored the warnings if in Jonathan's situation, but when you consider that 1. a lot of the horror motifs and symbols--dark stormy nights, "night of evil" superstitions, howling wolves, etc. are much more stereotypical now (prob in part thanks to the media) than they would have been then, so it wouldn't have been an instant red flag. 2. In Jonathan's position (as the enlightened Englishman, as Laz said) it makes sense that he wouldn't take the superstitions seriously since they so clash with his own culture and beliefs, especially when considering the general prejudice against eastern cultures.
Second thing: when Lucy becomes a vampire, it seems that she does not possess many of Dracula's powers--she can't (or doesn't) turn into mist or animals, control weather/nature/wildlife, etc. I was wondering why this might be. Right now I'm considering 1. Only Dracula's that special, as a sort of king of vampires, so Lucy's lack of powers isn't specific to her, but to all less vampires. 2. Lucy is a weak vampire because she has only just become one and is undevelopped. 3. She's a female vampire, role as woman=weaker (though the three female vampires in the beginning could turn into dust, I don't know if they controlled nature.)
Thoughts?
After all our class discussions on vampire myths and history, I became interested in reading more about them, and looked up some sites. Here are two good ones I came across... I thought they had some random yet cool information, and found some of it useful.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~vampire/vhist.html - This site talks about vampires in mythology and history, and the descriptions of them from different cultures.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dracula9.html - This site talks more about the actually Dracula (or Prince Vlad), and has some other random bits of information.
I found these sites to be interesting and helpful... hopefully someone else will too.
Women.
I think that Dracula as a novel really portrays women two dimensionally in many aspects so as to provide a critique on Victorian sex etiquette. As I was reading on some website, in the Victorian time period a lady was either an innocent "beautiful" virgin, a housewife, or a whore. When Dracula seduces and turns these innocent beauties into vixens he is in essence destroying all preconceived notions of sexual roles for Victorian women, and Stoker is creating quite the Victorian erotic thriller. Lust is intriguing and captivating as we have discussed in class. Sin and greed is so humanistic that we relate to the story. Stoker isn't necessarily undermining women as a whole, he is merely making them two dimensional so as to properly twist the sexual structure of Victorian times. Despite his somewhat two dimensional characters we can not forget the general social structure of the times. Women were typically house wives and didn't do much work. Stoker wasn't writing his novel to break the social fabric of the Victorian era, he was writing a captivating novel. I think that Stoker goes far enough by giving Mina the role of strength, he does keep her locked in a room but she does symbolize strength, which was generally a male characteristic. By saying that Mina gives the "boys" some strength to get the slaying done, Stoker is covertly emphasizing women's role in a male driven society.
As for similarities between Frank and Drac I think that Justine and Mina are similar characters. Both appear to be somewhat subservient yet have strong wills of their own. Justine faces death and does not fear too greatly, and Mina is the source of strength. Both these women have similar dispositions as well. There are probably numerous other similarities but that's just one that I could think of off the top of my head.
Nick
Char,
I have to agree with Lindsay in her first point. I think that Jonathan had an obligation to enter the castle. It might not have even mattered if he did actually fear what would happen -- he had a job to do.
Also...I think that in many ways Mina is the strongest character in the book. While still maintaining her sense of emotion, she is able to aid the men immensely. At times she says that she has to be strong and not cry when her husband has to depend on her. Yes, Lucy was a pretty weak woman... but i don't think that you can judge Stoker's opinion of women in any way off of the mom's character. She seemed old and unsure of her own actions. I think Lucy and Mina belong in their own category when considering how Stoker portrays women
I don't find it far-fetched at all that johnathan didn't heed the warnings of the townspeople. After all, Eastern Europe had a reputation for being superstititous and medieval/backward. Johnathan, and Englishman, was from a technologically advanced, progressive society that had undergone the Enlightenment and that also looked down upon the medieval-like superstitions of Eastern Europe. Johnathan saw the people also probably as religious bigots, with all of their crosses and other Christian paraphernalia.
I know that I, and probably most of people today, would've gone on just as Johnathan had. I often ride New York City subways, which are full of people holding signs saying such things as "Accept Christ or Burn in Hell" and often screaming at people as they walk by, warning of imminent danger unless they accept Christ. I, along with most other people, simply ignore these people and assume them to be religious radicals.
So perhaps Stoker was portraying in Dracula that one must not get too focused on the progressive ideals of an englightened society which condemn superstition and dogmatic faith, but should realize the power of faith and the supernatural.
ALso, referring to Molly's post: He was Voivode Dracula, who "won his name against the Turk" -
If this helps at all, I think that may refer to Vlad the Impaler who had had worked hard to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Many of the people Vlad impaled were also Turks. Interestingly, his name in Turkish means "Impaler Prince." Since he preserved land for Eastern Europe by stopping Ottoman Expansionism, however, in Romania and in other Eastern European countries he is remembered as a just ruler.
~Aviva
A few specific examples..
Stocker mentions women as the weaker sex, a victorian idea, when he has the blood transfusions. Van Helsing is always in search of a man, not a woman. He says that he doesn't know if the maids blood will do, even if they would consent to the operation.
Stocker also shows the place of women, and a way they were expected to act, in one of Mina's letters to Lucy. She says that she keeps a cheery and positive outlook on life for Johnathan's sake to keep up his self-esteem. She is feeling the weight of this pressure but is expected to keep it to herself and do waht she is supposed to.
Another thing, relating to Jess's comment, where she says that Lucy married all three men with the blood transfusions being symbolic. This reminded me of the quote she says to a letter in the beginning to Mina where she says if only a woman could marry three men. this showed her weakness to even say such things, and as she transforms into a vampire, it becomes truth.
Nick,
I don't find Justine and Mina to be similar characters at all. Mina is a main character, who at times narrates the story. She is of a different socio-economic level than Justine, and has a wonderful future to look forward to with her new fiance. Justine was of a lower class, a servant, and only had this life to lead. I wouldn't consider her a main character, and she seems to be merely a tool for Frankenstein, where Mina is far from this to Dracula.
By wishing she could marry all 3 men, Lucy displays a more sexual nature than Mina. While Lucy and Mina are extremely similar in background, I feel Stoker differtiates the two women by their sexuality. Mina is portrayed as very pure, wholesome, moral, virtuous, and all that other good stuff. When Dracula forces Mina to drink his blood, the scene seemed very sexual and even characteristic of rape. Dracula also says to Mina that it isn't the first time that he's drawn blood from her thus implying Mina's innocence and naivete. Lucy (as opposed to her happily married friend) comes off as bit more sexual. I feel this might be what attracted Dracula to her. Even as a vampire, Lucy continues to be beautiful and alluring.
I have a question about the idea of redemption at the end of this novel. It is made clear that Mina is made pure and holy again once Dracula is killed, because her scar from the communion wafer disappears... but what about Dracula? It is noted by Mina "in that moment of final dissolution, there was in the face [of Dracula] a look of peace, such as I never could have imagined might have rested there." Does Dracula receive redemption too, and is he glad to finally die (and be able to avoid sin), or is he damned to hell for eternity for what he has done? (Even Satan was offered redemption from God if he repented for his sins.) Just wondering what you all think about this...
Char- Justine and Mina's characters are in the stories completely separate but i think they are similar on a more psychological level. Like I said they both show signs of fortitude and strength in women.
Ryan- Christian values are prominent through out Dracula and Stocker appears to be writing about the greatness and importance of Christian religion shown in characters like Van Helsing. Tying into this motif is the idea of Christian salvation or redemption that everyone can be saved. I assumed that the look of peace on Dracula’s face was that of one who has been saved or forgiven, just like Satan could have been saved, so could Dracula. In the end of the novel Christianity prevails; it’s almost like the battle of good and evil, good prevails over bad, but Stoker understood that to win over something as vile and evil as Dracula, death wasn’t enough. The only real way to end something entirely sinister is to convert it to “the light side.” When Dracula dies he becomes, in essence, saved and forgiven; he joins the “good guys.” That’s my interpretation of the ending. Enjoy
--Nick
i have a question about Renfield. What is he? is he a vampire? or is he just a servant of Dracula? I'm really confused.
-Charlotte
ryan --
in addition to your question of whether or not dracula could be saved... what is the general opinion on lucy's redemption?
I don't think Dracula could be "saved" based on the fact that he's already. This is of course if you believe in religion and all of the stuff that goes along with it. In the ways of lore the undead lack souls. They just are living dead with no morals/values/etc. That's my view on the subject
-Pat
In response to Charlotte's question about Renfield:
According to many, it is believed the Renfield is the first solicitor sent from England to visit Dracula. His visit to the castle made him mad and now is mentally unstable. Probably a self-admitted patient of Dr. Seward's. I personally don't think he is a vampire but definitely has a strong connection with Dracula. For instance, he attacks Dr. Seward with a dinner knife to drink his blood instead of leaping for the neck as the other vampires like Lucy and Dracula himself have done. This behavior seems atypical of a true vampire. Stoker's extreme lack of history regarding Renfield leaves a lot of room for imagination though lol.
I agree with Jenn, Renfield is probably in a similar state as Jonathan was after closely interacting with Dracula. He's not a vampire, but is haunted by Dracula's close proximity to him. Just like how Jonathan couldn't remember anything about his time in Transylvania and seemed slightly mentally unstable when Mina came to see him.
~Aviva
This is a little response to Aviva and Jen's discussion.
What Renfield's condition made me think of was actually all the animals that seem to be under Dracula's control. He is rather animalistic in nature: impulsive, rash, and cannot control himself at times. Although he is not a true vampire, he definately is under Dracula's spell. Just a thought
-Ellie
Post a Comment
<< Home