Author: giuliapagano

In this blog post I will be composing a close reading of Christina Rossetti’s poem entitled “In an Artist’s Studio”. In this poem, the female narrator finds herself in the art studio of, presumably, a male artist. There are many canvases with a seemingly similar face that appear in all the paintings. There are two implicit messages within this poem: the loss of female identity in a male-dominated art world, and the reclaiming of a woman’s identity. These two messages are clearly divided in the structure of the sonnet. The octave addresses the claim that a woman’s identity is “hidden” and made as a “one selfsame figure”. Rossetti is claiming that the depictions of queens, nameless girls, and saints are all the same–almost as if the woman’s face and figure is being exploited for the benefit of the artist. Even though she is depicted as various characters, she has “the same one meaning” that doesn’t add nor subtract from her. She remains the same as she is constantly used over and over again like a recyclable object. Additionally, the woman in the various paintings has no voice because she is literally trapped within the canvass where she cannot move nor speak. Instead, she is kept in her place, just like the majority of the women in the Victorian Era.

In the last sestet of the sonnet, the tone changes and the repetition of the word “not” appears multiple times. This repetition is a way for the woman in the poem to push back against the way that men perceive her. The implicit message in the last couple verses that repeat “not as she is” alludes to the fact that all those paintings are not really of her, but are only multiple visions of how the artist wants to see her. It is not her in the paintings, but just a “dream” she fills in the minds of men.

In this blog post I would like to address the first prompt of Dracula as a novel that addresses the science and pseudoscience in the Victorian era. The notion that science has the ability to explain all things in life is a predominate belief in modern times. Humans are starting to rationalize their lives, and consequently distancing themselves from humanity. However, in Dracula, there is a reoccurring theme of doubt about scientific beliefs and theories. There is a constant struggle between scientific beliefs and superstitions in this novel. For example, when Van Helsing first puts garlic in Lucy’s room to ward away the evil spirits, Lucy’s mother then uses her common judgement and opens the windows as to not “suffocate” her child. Ultimately, this causes the near-death of Lucy. The whole novel is based on the Gothic motive of doubt because it plays on both the fascination of the inexplicable, but also the need for everything to have an explanation. John Bowen in his article “Gothic Motives” explains: “The uncertainty that goes with Gothic is very characteristic of a world in which orthodox religious belief is waning; there is both an exaggerated interest in the supernatural and the constant possibility that even very astonishing things will turn out to be explicable.” Bowen points out that even the strangest character such as Count Dracula ends up having an explanation, even if it is supported by pseudoscientific facts.

Throughout the novel Dracula, Bram Stroker plays upon the superstitions of the people during this time. During the Victorian era, modernity was coming into the forefront of society with the industrial revolution and the invention of new technology. At the basis of modernity lays this belief of positivism: the belief that science is at the basis of all things (art, literature, etc.) From the beginning of the Renaissance period, humans started rationalizing all things in life, as if they wanted to prove that there is an explanation for everything in the world.

In this novel, it is the character of Van Helsing who questions this belief. He says: “Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? […] Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain” (204). In this passage Helsing explain that there are things in life that do not have an explanation, and that force one to look elsewhere for the answers. The doctor is, of course, referring to the idea of Lucy being bitten by a vampire, but there is more to this passage than just a direct connection the novel.

In my opinion, we can make the claim that Dracula is a novel that casts doubt on the fixed theories and scientific beliefs of this time. Thus, it is not the blood-sucking vampires that causes the fear, but it is indeed the fear of doubt the readers experience that makes this a truly horrific novel.

“There he sat, with his tweed suit and his American accent, in the corner of a prosaic railway-carriage, and yet as I looked at his dark and expressive face I felt more than ever how true a descendant he was of that long line of high-blooded, fiery, and masterful men.” (55)

The character of Sir Henry is a puzzling one. We, as readers, do not receive a lot of information about him except for the fact that he has lived in Canada, and has come back to England because he is the closest heir to Sir Charles. I chose this quote because it depicts an almost contradictory image of Sir Henry’s identity: An American-looking Baskerville. In Watson’s eyes, the contrast is quite clear. I find it interesting how his clothes portray him as a cheery American, but his facial features tell another story. Watson describes his face as “dark” and “expressive”, as if these features indicate an obvious tie to the Baskerville lineage.

Not only do we learn about Sir Henry, but we also get a clearer sense of how the Baskerville men are perceived. The first descriptor is “high-blooded”, which means that they are of noble lineage, and therefore powerful and rich. These men are also “fiery” and “masterful”, which could mean that they might be seen as having a quick temper, and perhaps unpredictable.

What could this mean for Sir Henry? Why does Watson now realize that he is this way? Could this be a possible foreshadowing of how the character might  transform throughout the story?

Since the disappearance of George Talboys, Robert Audley has been obsessively searching clues that lead to his body. In the beginning, Robert seemed to be nothing but a concerned friend. As the story progresses, I am starting to notice this weird obsession that Robert has with George’s disappearance. In chapter two of the second volume, Robert questions his feelings for George: “Who would have thought that I could have grown so fond of the fellow,” he muttered, “or feel so lonely without him? …” (163) So, why is Robert so “fond” of George? Why is he willing to give up everything he owns to have George by his side.  I believe that these questions may lead us to a deeper discovery of the relationship between Robert and George. I cannot help but question whether or not these two characters share a kind of common bond. Or, perhaps his obsession with George’s disappearance indicates that Robert knows more than he’s telling us. Why does he want to find George so badly? And, more importantly, why is he almost positive that George is dead? Robert may have an inkling about what has happened to George, and who might have been involved. However, since the narrator is unreliable, we cannot be sure whether or not Robert is hiding something from us or not.