In Franco Moretti’s text “A Capital Dracula”, he argues Dracula is a representation of the evils of capitalism. He asserts that the nature of vampires, their sucking of blood, is symbolic of capitalism’s ongoing desire for growth and accumulation. Dracula as a character is the personification of the evils of capitalism in how he seeks to dominate his victims as “accumulation is inherent in his nature” and strips them of their individual liberties (Moretti 432). Dracula does not necessarily find pleasure in “spilling blood: he needs blood”, insinuating that not only is capitalism fatal for those victims of its system, or fatal to those inflicted by the acts of the Count but there is a curse on the system itself (Moretti 431). Dracula, taken as a personification of this system, is compelled not only by desire but also an inherent need for blood and domination, thus a burden of his own to inflict pain on his victims which I think brings a different light to the conversation of capitalism that not only is the system fatal to lower-class folk but also to those that supposedly benefit from the system stripping them of their individual liberty as well. Dracula seems to then represent both sides of the effects of capitalism but also reveals one of the novel’s messages about how capitalism is also detrimental to the upper class.
Furthermore, in his article, Moretti claims the increase in Van Helsing’s speeches in the novel, with his “perverse English” and “mangled” dialect, is symbolic of when Dracula seems to have taken control of the situation and asserted his capitalistic and monopolistic agenda (Moretti 437). I think this claim reveals a theme of othering also present within the novel, rather than what Moretti claims to be a specific commentary of British capitalism, but an expression of fear of a different country’s systems. The descriptions of Dracula’s origins and his strangeness as an aristocrat reveal the othering Stoker evokes in portraying Dracula’s character as an evil dominator over his victims, but also an odd aristocrat from Eastern Europe. During Jonathan Harker’s initial meeting with the Count, his first impressions of the vampire are of his strange hospitality. Harker notes that the Count “himself left my luggage inside” and “The Count himself came forward and took off the cover of a dish, and I fell to at once on an excellent roast chicken” (Stoker). The repetition of ‘The Count himself’ denotes Harker’s confusion with the lack of presence of servants in the castle These behaviors are odd to Harker as a British aristocrat because, as Moretti argues, a defining feature of a noble is their servants (Moretti 431). The lack of servants is perceived as strange to Harker, as he continues to go about the castle “look[ing] for a bell, so that [he] might let the servants know [he] had finished; but [he] could not find one” (Stoker). The portrayal of the stately castle with an unconventional aristocrat as its inhabitant revealed to me that the commentary on capitalism could be attributed to the governing systems of other countries and their evils. In addition to the oddities of the Count as an aristocrat, Stoker further others the vampire through Dracula’s own understanding of his differences from Harker in their initial encounters. The vampire notes that in Transylvania “our ways are not your ways, and there shall be to you many strange things” and catches himself when he falls into his “country’s habit of putting [the] patronymic first” and calls Harker, Harker Jonathan by accident (Stoker). These small instances of the differences in the Count are introduced before there is any mention or indication that he is a vampire. The Count is characterized in the beginning chapters of the novel as an unconventional aristocrat from a strange land East of London and sets the tone of the novel of discomfort and fear towards the domineering noble from another part of the world fairly unfamiliar to those of England.
I agree with Moretti that given the majority of the novel is narrated by its British characters, the distinction to when Dracula’s power grows and dominates the narrative can be represented by the increase in Van Helsing’s speeches and his improper English. However, I took more from Moretti’s point that the narrative is focused on emphasizing British Victorian culture in its distinctions between Dracula and the Harkers (Moretti 437). The narrative shift between when the Harkers dominate the story-telling versus Van Helsing is due in part to the novel’s representation of the othering of Eastern European countries.
This reflection was very well written, and it led me to ponder whether because of capitalistic systems Dracula felt it was the easiest to feed on lower-class people? Evidently, Dracula and his gang will go after weaker people, and it makes sense why Lucy would initially feed on children. In a capitalistic system, the target is directed at the lower classes, those who do not have the means to protect themselves. Children are at the bottom of their own age hierarchy and present themselves as the weakest group who can not defend themselves. This system allows Dracula to act as the overseer with minimal defiance (so he thought) and ensure his legacy.
This is a fascinating socio-economic reading of Dracula. It’s easy to characterize Dracula as one who simply enjoys feeding on the weak out of evil desire and leave out the system which employs him to do the things he does. To think of Dracula’s killing spree as a systematic process rather than serial murder is something indicative of the anxieties of the Fin de Siecle. The degeneration of the British Empire and its socioeconomic structures created uncertainty for many about how the shift in times would affect both the upper and lower class. The vulnerability of the lower class, as illustrated in Dracula, created an easy target for aristocrats such as Dracula to take advantage of them in a multitude of ways.