Using Carol Senf’s analysis of “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror” as a lens, we can explore the character of Count Dracula in Bram Stoker’s Dracula in a more nuanced way. Moreso, we can look at Dracula through a role reversal: as a product of the environment created by our main characters rather than the innate monster.
Seemingly minor in the grand scheme of plot details, I want to take us back to the beginning of the novel. Two important distinctions Senf makes relate to (1) English law and (2) unfair condemnation. Senf argues that Dracula follows English law more closely than his opponents, except in matters of sexual behavior (424). While his sexual deviance can be explored further, we are looking at the moral implications of this. Despite being a vampire, Dracula adheres to a set of rules and codes that govern his actions. He is a foreigner in England and tries to integrate into the society while maintaining his vampiric existence. This adherence to societal norms and rules can be seen as a form of innocence on his part. Up until now, and even after, as noted by Senf, Dracula is never tied to any concrete evidence of his attacks (425). It is Jonathan Harker who first meets Dracula and is offput by his pale appearance (in addition to sharp canines and reddish eyes). This catalyzes the unjust treatment of Dracula.
Despite being a little creepy here and there, Dracula acts in a manner that is polite and hospitable. Readers get descriptions of Dracula providing Jonathan with good food, presentable and warm bedchambers, and access to unrestricted parts of his home. Not viewing Dracula as a menace, it is entirely reasonable to have certain parts of your house off-limits from guests. But turn your attention to the scene where Jonathan is shaving. Here, he cuts himself with his razor and Dracula appears. As they are the only ones in the castle, this so-called vampiric killer had the perfect opportunity to attack Jonathan, but instead we get a different response: “’Take care,’ he said, ‘take care how you cut yourself. It is more dangerous than you think in this country’” (Stoker 33). Dracula chose to not act on any vampiric urges he may have possessed, but this act is dismissed by readers because he has already been judged.
Let’s turn a few scenes later to Jonathan’s attack on sleeping Dracula. Jonathan, too lost in his own mind, has convinced himself that Dracula is a vampire that needs to be stopped. In turn, he takes a shovel and attempts to bash in the head of a helpless Dracula. It is Jonathan Harker, one of our supposed protagonists, who initiates the aggression by striking Dracula out of panic. This act sets the stage for a chain of events where Dracula becomes the hunted rather than the hunter they make him out to be. The question then arises: did Dracula’s actions, later characterized as monstrous, result from this initial aggression against him? Senf highlights the fact that Dracula may be innocent when she says, “it becomes difficult to determine whether he is a hideous bloodsucker whose touch breeds death or a lonely and silent figure who is hunted and persecuted” (424). He is pursued relentlessly and attacked without a proper understanding of his motives or the opportunity to explain himself. This raises the question of whether the main characters are really defending themselves against a threat, or are they projecting their own fears and prejudices onto him? Additionally, Senf encourages us to consider whether Dracula’s actions are driven solely by malevolence or if there are other factors at play, such as the isolation and the fear he felt being hunted by these people.
Looking at Dracula as an innocent, targeted person, his choice of returning to his homeland makes perfect sense. He arrived in England to try to become a part of society, was rejected by this group of influential, upper-class individuals who slandered his name, so, in turn, chose to return home where he felt safe. This harmless choice was only greeted with aggressive chasing from the main characters who ultimately killed him. Notably, Dracula’s final moments were met with “a look of peace” on his face as the main characters looked on (Stoker 401). In essence, Senf’s analysis encourages readers to reevaluate Dracula’s innocence and the fairness of his treatment. It prompts us to consider the possibility that Dracula’s transformation into a fearsome antagonist may have been, at least in part, a consequence of the unjust treatment he received for only being a quirky, hospitable host.
I also used Senf’s article as my lens although I decided to view Dracula in a more specific way which was as an immigrant who suffered the conquered of being a foginer while you seemed to explore the all the ways in which Dracula was innocent. I loved the way that you laid everything out to go beyond Senf intail claim of Dracula’s innocent. To try an add my argument without being to heavy-handed, I think that when you talk about Dracula’s appances being unsettling to Johonthan that it would be lovely (well maybe not lovely) if you mentioned just how much Johontan seemed to point out Draucla more “fogine” features. There are countless times in which Draucla’s face shape is called out in a way that points to the xenophobia that the characters and consqunstly the narrative had.
This is a super interesting argument, I love it! Seeing Dracula as someone who was ostracized from society is really interesting and if he is the victim, I wonder what Lucy would be. Would Lucy also be a victim? If Dracula were a good guy and only acted against the aggression that he faced, what could be said about his “victims”? I think it would also be interesting to expand on Dracula’s constraint in the scene with the razor. If Dracula has the aggression but acts against it, does that make him innocent?