Please respond to one or more of the below questions from today's student co-leaders.
In Chapter 6, Mr. Swales denotes his inability to believe haunting legends, and informs Mina and Lucy that the graves at Whitby churchyard are vacant because these individuals perished at sea. Later, in Chapter 7 Mr. Swales is found with a broken neck. Is there a repeated theme of death surrounding those who refuse to believe? For instance, in Polidori's "The Vampyre", Aubrey refuses to believe the vampire stories told by Ianthe and her parents, and later she is found killed. Is this meant to be a coincidence in vampire narratives? (Melanie E.)
Half of the chapters for this week’s Dracula readings revolve around the journal entries and letters of the two main female protagonists, Mina and Lucy. Initially, these characters are portrayed as objects of virtue, beauty, and vulnerability. Compare and contrast these descriptions to Stoker’s characterizations of the female vampires at the castle. What insights do these comparisons yield about sexuality and womanly virtue in Dracula? How do these insights contribute to the larger theme of good vs. evil with regards to women? (Alex I)
Throughout chapters 6-11, we see Lucy's health gradually deteriorate. Although we know that her illness is connected to Dracula, none of the characters suspect that there is a supernatural element to Lucy's illness. Dr. Seward, unable to help Lucy through the use of modern medicine, calls upon the aid of Dr. Van Helsing, who employs less scientific and traditional methods. What do you think Stoker is trying to say about science and modern medicine, and the society that they are products of? Why does he place so much emphasis on superstition? Do you think that the dichotomy between science and superstition will be a theme throughout the rest of the novel? (Lucy P.)
In a direct contrast to the citizens of Transylvania, whose lives are permeated by superstitious ideas, characters in Victorian society respond with reason and skepticism. One such example is Mr. Swales, who all but laughs at the haunting stories about the town of Whitby. Additionally, Dr. Seward looks upon Van Helsing's placing of garlic on Lucy when she falls ill as somewhat silly, as does her mother when she removes them and Lucy suffers another attack. In essence, adherence to science and reason while refuting superstition and supernatural possibilities dooms her, making Dracula's reign of terror in England all the more effective. Could this be by his design, knowing this characteristic of the populace he terrorizes? Moreover, could this be a sort of warning/belief on Stoker's part that sometimes reason and science aren't everything? (Andy S.)
I think the population could have an effect on where Dracula terrorizes. The people who live near the Count in the beginning of the novel were so fearful for Jonathan going to the area he was traveling to you would think they were being dragged along with him. These people were highly superstitious. However, those back in Jonathan's home area are much more updated in a sense, in that they feel they need a specific reason for Lucy's illness. Dracula, as most vampires, is credited with being clever and manipulative, so it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that he takes advantage of those people ignorant to his existence and the very legend of it. This makes it easier to do his deeds unnoticed, or go unnoticed until he has slipped out of the immediate area of danger. Had those caring for Lucy been more open to the possibility of her illness not from scientific reasoning before Van Helsing arrived, they may have been able to save her sooner. In contrast, if Lucy had been experiencing the same symptoms in, say, Transylvania, people who knew of the superstition may have been able to help her sooner without such disbelief.
ReplyDeleteI think Andy raises an interesting point about Stoker's possible belief that sometimes reason and science aren't everything. I do think Stoker could have been pointing out this idea, in that he was writing an entire book on superstition, widely considered fictional but then again, the superstition did start somewhere and somehow. Maybe people are too focused on scientific advancement and ignoring preexisting legends that could explain somethings. I do not necessarily think this was Stoker's reasoning for writing this piece, but I do think it is an interesting point he may have hinted at.
I believe that Dracula knows the differences between the Victorian society and the Translyvanian society, and he uses it to his advantage. He knows through his studies and through his discussions with Jonathan Harker about the cultural differences in England. He is therefore able to use their ignorance and begin his reign of terror, unbeknown to people in England. This also connects with the first question. I believe that most people who don't believe in the superstitions of vampires are attacked, but I believe it is becuase they don't understand the precautions that they must take. Van Helsing, a man who believes and knows about vampires, tries to help Lucy by placing garlic on her, but Lucy's mother, who doesn't believe, thinks this is ridiculous and removes it. This causes her daughter to be attacked once more.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stoker is trying to say that sometimes reason and science aren't everything. I think that it applies to his time, the late 19th eary 20th century, very well. In that time there were still a lot of unknown things that science could not explain. It is interesting to see how differenlty Mattheson thinks. In I Am Legend, Mattheson uses science in order to explain everything about the vampires. He uses it to explain how they became vampires, why they don't like crosses, why they die when stabbbed with a stake versus being shot, and so forth. I think that the comparison between the two is very interesting.
I think that when we consider the time period when Dracula was written, it makes it easier to see that Stoker may have been trying to convey an underlying message that people are too focused on science. Dracula was written right after Darwin wrote his book and when technology was developing, so it makes sense that Stoker might want to contradict those practices with his novel.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Rhiannon as far as location having an effect on where he terrorizes. Like she mentioned, had Lucy had these strange symptoms in Transylvania, I think people would have thought that supernatural things may have been at work and she probably could have been helped sooner. Since she became ill in her own home, people were much less receptive of supernatural causes which could be Stoker's way of saying that science isn't always the answer.
I think the two opposing comparisons on sexuality and virtues are great for discussion and definition. In order to kind of explain one you need the other. Which is why a lot of the journal entries take time to explain the situations and unpack the women’s ‘love’. Where as earlier, the female vampires took 2-3 pages at max to express their lust.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to contribution to the larger theme, I think that they ring true to the basic idea of good vs. evil. Mina and Lucy have morals, they have virtues and an innocent beauty. Where as the female vampires have no morals and a more seductive beauty. It hits on that idea that good is a taste or belief that is acquired and takes a little deeper understanding. Evil is more seductive and is easier to fall into.
I think belief is a constant theme throughout the vampire narrative, like with Mr. Swales. For example, the entire civilization ended up fading out in I Am Legend because of their refusal to believe that myth could be truth. A similar thing occurs in Lost Souls, when the boys that (for example) Christian kills the children while they believe he will turn them. In a way, isn't the downfall of humanity in the vampire narrative always the naivete of the humans? Jonathan doesn't believe the legends told to him on the way to Dracula's lair, and he is thoroughly punished for it. If anything I would say that the "cardinal rule" to break during a vampire narrative, it would be "don't believe in vampires". Coincidence is definitely a word for how not believing is treated.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a major theme, throughout the vampire novels that we have read so far, of belief in the supernatural. In Polidori's "The Vampyre", there is the whole affair with Aubrey brushing off the cautionary tales from Ianthe and her parents which leads right into Lord Ruthven's fatal encounter with Ianthe. Also, in "I Am Legend", we hear from Neville that a large part of the panic spread by the plague was that some people thought it was caused by the supernatural threat of vampires, while others firmly believed that they could not exist, which led to a divide among the people. In "Dracula", Jonathan Harker continues his journey to Castle Dracula even against the many pleas from the innkeeper and townsfolk, which leads to his imprisonment and almost to his death. We also see this again on the boat which Dracula was aboard heading to England. We read in the records written by the captain that one of the crew members spotted a tall, dark figure on the boat, but people doubted this. Even though the captain ordered a search of the ship, it still seems that even he is doubtful of the crew member. Near the end of the voyage, the only crew remaining are the captain and the first mate, the first mate begins to open the crates and finds Dracula, after which he jumps off the boat and drowns. The captain suspects then, until actually he comes face to face with Dracula, that the one who had actually killed the crew was the first mate. So we see many examples within just the small scope of which we have read that one of the vampire's greatest weapon is the fact that people don't believe that such a thing could exist, so they turn a blind eye towards a being that is very dangerous to them.
ReplyDelete~Anthony J.
Although Mina and Lucy are supposed to represent "good" values and the female vampires are supposed to represent "bad" values, such as female sexuality, I think it's interesting to note that Mina and Lucy are entirely helpless. They have no power whatsoever, and Lucy falls victim to Dracula's reign of terror. The female vampires, on the other hand, are very powerful, and use their sexuality to their advantage. So although Mina and Lucy are “good,” their virtues don’t really help them in any way, so perhaps Stoker isn’t denouncing sexuality entirely.
ReplyDeleteAlso, considering that 3 out of the 4 lead questions deal with superstition/skepticism, I think it’s fair to say that this is definitely a very important theme. The very reason that Dracula is so effective in terrorizing Victorian English society is because no one suspects that it’s him, no one could bring themselves to believe in the possibility of having a vampire in their midst. I think Stoker is definitely reacting against the society that he lived in, which was so obsessed with science and reason. I think that perhaps Stoker is saying that it’s good to have an open mind, instead of thinking in such a rigid, constricted manner.
The science vs. superstition idea is very interesting to me because it kind of demonstrates how based on the time periods of things, outlooks or focuses can change. Dracula which is an older novel kind of downplays the science in comparison to superstition while I Am Legend uses science as the main cause and explanation for the vampires. At this point in history, there is still a lot of science that hasn’t been discovered, although the advancements are being made. Taking the focus away from that kind of places us into the traditional mind state and fitting the genre better as it is more of a fictional type of novel versus science fiction. Even though science is inevitable and unavoidable at times, I believe that because of the time period Dracula takes place in, it is likely that there will still be more of a focus on superstition.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lucy P, I do feel as though Lucy's sickness says a lot about superstition. This seemed to be a big deal during the period of which Lucy's sickness progressed. I think stoker focused a lot on superstition for a reason. No one was really able to identify Lucy's illness to a vampire. When Dr. Van Helsing brought garlic as a method to try and suppress her symptoms that was a way of saying that there could possibly be something else taking control of Lucy's body. This is where the superstition comes in. I do believe that this won't be a recurring theme because there are a lot of clues that will reveal Dracula. As far as science and medicine I think stoker is trying to show that during this time medicine was definitely not perfected. The doctor gave Lucy two blood transfusions and we know obviously that in modern time two blood transfusions from two different people isn't realistic nor health conscious. Stoker is also showing that we are in a time where trial and error is huge.There are a lot of risks taken with the approach to healing people. Through this book I think things will improve as far as science vs. superstition.
ReplyDeleteIn order to fully understand the conflict between science and superstition illustrated in the novel we have to keep in mind the time period of which the work was originally written. The turn of the 19th century marked many advances in the scientific community, and probably the most influential to the making of this novel was the concept of evolution proclaimed through Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). By introducing such a notion, society was forced to renounce once commonly upholded beliefs on the nature of man, and to replace them with a theory based on evidence and reason. This can be related to British society negating such superstition that the Translyvanians upheld so fervently. Since the existence of a "Dracula" is deemed fictitious in London, even by someone as uneducated as Mr. Swales, how would these people so concerned with science know to, and how to, combat something they reject entirely? The only superstitious remedy, Dr. Van Helsing's garlic, wasn't even recognized by Lucy's mom as 'medical' practice and was immediately removed from her room. This cultural difference is what allows Dracula to prevail in Britain.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not believe that authors of vampire narratives intend to include situations like this in every vampire novel, I do believe that this is used by many because of the sheer “scare factor” that these situations demand. I believe some authors include situations where non-believers suffer a horrible tragedy because they want to engage the readers and encourage them to play into the vampire legend and get into the story. Whenever movies of exorcisms or ghost stories come out they always show footage of skeptics either dying first or becoming extreme believers. This is playing off of the same scare tactic. Even though the TV audience knows that these “skeptics” are most likely exaggerating or paid actors, it still keeps them entertained and helps them play into the scariness of the movie. The same goes for vampire books, the death of skeptics engages the readers and almost encourages them to believe in the possibility of vampires, even if its only for the sake of their reading pleasure.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Aubrey’s situation in The Vampyre, although he is not killed, something traumatic happens to him and causes him to change his beliefs. People feel extremely intrigued with the idea of non-believers turning into believers because it is something that goes against what society tells us. Mankind is centered around labels. Whether these labels are good or bad we are taught that we should pick a side and stick by it. When people witness someone change their beliefs instantly due to a drastic event it scares us because it is such a radical shift of emotions making the situation more serious than thought before. This works in vampire novels because it plays on this fear and uses it to make the reader more engaged in the folklore now that they have a skeptic to reference to. Although I do not think it is an essential for vampire narratives, I do feel like it definitely compliments the story.
I definitely do believe there is a repeated theme of death for those that do not believe. I automatically saw this image in my head: the wild look a victim has in their eyes right before they die in a vampire story. In that moment the nonbelievers realize that these supernatural monsters they thought only existed in their nightmares...are real.The nonbelievers always suffer..not only in the "The Vampyre", but in "I am Legend" as well. Everyone became infected with something they did not believe was "real". Maybe the consequence of being a nonbeliever is not always death, but it is something.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do believe there is a repeated theme of death for those that do not believe. I automatically saw this image in my head: the wild look a victim has in their eyes right before they die in a vampire story. In that moment the nonbelievers realize that these supernatural monsters they thought only existed in their nightmares...are real.The nonbelievers always suffer..not only in the "The Vampyre", but in "I am Legend" as well. Everyone became infected with something they did not believe was "real". Maybe the consequence of being a nonbeliever is not always death, but it is something.
ReplyDelete-Akanimoh E
It makes sense that Dracula would decide to terrorize the people of England due to their disbelief in him and superstition in general. Because of their ignorance to the fact that vampires are real they have no real way to protect themselves against Dracula. With all the books and whatnot about England and the discussions with Harker, Dracula must know this and being an intelligent creature would use this to his advantage. The people of Transylvania being more superstitious than those of England are much better prepared with their crosses and garlic than if they were to use science and reason alone. Without believing in Dracula how could Lucy be saved with ineffective means such as science in medicine. Only when the superstitious Van Helsing comes along do would things become better off, had Lucy's mother not removed the garlic. The simple act of leaving the garlic around Lucy's neck, though silly to someone who just uses reason, would have stopped her from being attacked a second time. It is possible that Stoker is trying to hint at the fact that science and reason alone may not always be the most effective ways to deal with things and sometimes the answer to a problem may be much simpler.
ReplyDeleteThat reason and science are useless against Dracula serves to delineate the greater point being made by Stoker about 19th century society at the time. The fact that the characters of England, modern and imperial, take no heed in the supernatural or the metaphysical, highlights the failings of modern society against the ancient. In a sense there is a dialectic in "Dracula" between the old and the new, the east and the west, the imperial and the fractured, and by showing the misfortune that befalls those who take no heed in the danger of the supernatural, Stoker highlights this struggle.
ReplyDeleteBrando W.
I believe that Stoker emphasizes the difference between science and superstition in order to make the reader feel the mystery and foreignness of vampires. In early chapters, he shows this dichotomy with Jonathan Harker and his reliance on modern technology and how Harker soon realizes that none of those items could help him while at Dracula’s castle. He ends up believing in the superstitions and it ends up saving his life. Lucy will only be saved from dying if she also gives in to superstitions and trusts Dr. Van Helsing’s methods over Dr. Seward’s use of modern science. I think that Stoker will definitely continue this dichotomy throughout the novel.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a recurring theme of vulnerability, danger, and death surrounding those that are hesitant to believe superstition or that which they do not understand. This can be seen within Dracula as Jonathan Harker falls asleep in the random room in the castle after dark against Dracula’s advisement, thus placing himself in the danger of the three strange women. It can also be incorporated early on in the novel as Harker ignores his initial ill feelings and the recurring concern from villagers about his safety. Instead of taking these signs into account, he continues on to Dracula’s castle because he feels duty bound and is resilient to truly believe in the supernatural at first. This theme once again occurs in dealing with the ship that finds its way into the harbor during the storm, though all the crew is dead. In this case, by the time the crew members finally believe there is something else aboard the boat it is already too late for them to save themselves. I do not believe this is a coincidence in vampire narratives because using someone’s disbelief against them is an effective way to heighten the horror of a novel and intrigue the reader. As the reader witnesses the unfortunate fates of those that refuse to believe within the novel, I believe it becomes easier for their interest in the mystery to grow.
ReplyDeleteSarah S.
Novels, particularly horror novels, often play off the issues of the time. I Am Legend was written during the Cold War, a time when full-scale nuclear war was a very real possibility. Thus is was a war that caused the vampire out-break and Neville uses science to explain the disease. The novel has a distinct anti-war theme. Dracula moves into a society that has been completely transformed by the Industrial Revolution. Many in that society felt that Britain had lost connection with the Romantic and spiritual and that is why they seem powerless to stop him. The vampire traditionally is an outsider who enters through the perceived weak points of a society and that is why he is such a effective threat.
ReplyDelete-Rick R.
I believe that authors of vampire novels have no intends to kill people who refuse to believe the vampires but I think it is purposely included in any of vampire narrative. In my opinion, the death of characters who do not believe works, or at least brings similar effects, as effects of isolation. It helps readers to get into the story and be more thrilled because I can easily find people do not believe the existence of vampires love to read vampire novels and the death of non-believers in the story leads the readers to think those non-believers as themselves.
ReplyDeleteSang K. Hwang
Mina and Lucy are portrayed as women of virtue because they are supposed to represent "good" women of a higher class. Besides their virtue, beauty is important because in that time period one of the few things that women could offer their husbands was their good looks. As for their vulnerability, women were expected to be seen as frail to their male counterparts. All that being said, the female vampires that we have encountered were not portrayed with any of these characteristics. I think this has to do with the fact that the vampires are not really seen as people, and even as women they are seen as evil. While the vampires are described as being very attractive it is lust and sexuality that is emphasized over actual beauty. The fact that the vampires are not seen as weak even though the are female can be explained through the fact that vampires are expected to have some sort of supernatural powers.
ReplyDelete-Jessica G
I'd like to build off of what Sarah just said and suggest that in Dracula, logic is the enemy. It works against those who employ it almost immediately, and it happens at the cause of a vampire. As many of you guys have addressed, those who do not believe are always struck down somehow by Dracula, or forced into an otherwise vulnerable position by a vampire. I believe Stoker did intend to address this by relocating The Count from Transylvania to England, from East and superstition to West and reason, as Ted, Giancarlo, and Jillian have addressed (at least). Yet wherever they are, the reasonable and scientifically (academically) dedicated in 'Dracula' cannot but be rendered helpless in the face of vampires: the vulnerability of Jonathan in the room with the three vampire women, Seward's inability to help Lucy, the precaution-less crew of the ship carrying Dracula ending up dead. Stoker depicts this vulnerability through characters both male and female in a way so that I don't believe it's necessarily intended to be a commentary on the inherent vulnerability of women
ReplyDelete(and I know no one outright suggested that), but on the vulnerability of believing everything you're taught--that the world is normal, decipherable, reasonable. As he weaves Count Dracula throughout history, pits him against medicine, and uses him to defy science in his really well-crafted novel, Stoker uses the vulnerability vampire stories project on their human protagonists and reader to help us identify with their plight. We have the benefit of our time period, though, of having seen advancements and changes in the direction of medicine and that sometimes it still doesn't work. Stories of superstition still have a special place in modern society. Perhaps this vulnerability to the supernatural other is something we crave--perhaps Stoker means to suggest we don't really want to explain it all away.
I think that the use of modern medicine or modern technology against supernatural entities or supernatural illnesses--which is what I would call Lucy's illness since Dracula was the cause of it--is always interesting and usually proves to be pointless. I think Bram Stoker started or continued to follow the trend that most authors were using as far as making the point that modern medicine is useless against supernatural things. I think that the superstition is what backs up the success of Van Helsing's aid, as he is one who accepts and believes in the supernatural, which might mean that the book is implying that those who are superstitious of those things are less vulnerable to them.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the protection against vampires, I do not think that it is a part of Dracula's plan for people like Mr. Swales to laugh at the superstitions of others . Dracula is more capable of preying off of those who do not believe in vampires. The notion of reason and science, as presented in Dracula, symbolizes the idea that change is never a good thing if it effects what people are intimately accustomed to. For me Dracula symbolically represents the evil and vices people are capable of committing if they do not follow the norms of their society. There is always a conflict when people do not adhere to social constructs such as: what is excepted as the proper rules of sexuality, what is the correct way to speak, or what is considered good manners.
ReplyDelete