Author: Chazz Michael Michaels

“I spared somebody. It sounds vain, but you understand what I mean. She was quite beautiful, and wonderfully like Sibyl Vane. I think it was that which first attracted me to her. You remember Sibyl, don’t you? How long ago that seems! Well, Hetty was not one of our own class, of course. She was simply a girl in a village. But I really loved her. I am quite sure that I loved her” (Wilde 177).

In this quotation from Dorian, the boy’s ignorance and classicism separates him from Hetty, the woman he finds himself attracted to, in explaining: “Well, Hetty was not one of our own class, of course. She was simply a girl in a village.” Though immediately after, dismisses this, claiming “But I really loved her. I am quite sure I loved her.” Through this paradigm of classist thought have we seen Dorian carry out both his horrible wrongdoings, as well as his attempts to rid himself of them. Or in this case, rather than utilizing these social benefits towards predation (“killing” Sybil and really killing Basil), he now intends to save people, acknowledging his past mistakes. What’s interesting to me about the fact that Dorian claims to be in love with Hetty is that she reminds him of Sibyl, someone who’s death he dismissed so easily. He even acknowledges this to a degree by claiming, “She was quite beautiful, and wonderfully like Sibyl Vane. I think it was that which first attracted me to her.” Here there is an implication that he also loved Sibyl just loved Hetty, which doesn’t make the most sense given how that ended. Particularly in saying, “You remember Sibyl, don’t you? How long ago that seems”, it seems as though Lord Henry’s influence took shape in how Dorian would not think much of her going forward. As Dorian claims that he ‘spared’ her, maybe because Hetty reminds him of Sibyl, he wanted to kill her because he didn’t get the chance before?

 

 

Going off of our discussion in class, I want to continue the conversation illuminating the overlap between Dionea and Dracula. Obviously, Dionea incorporates supernatural and mythological elements similar to how Dracula includes myth and superstition, but as we pointed to, the overlap is much more profound in the characterization throughout these two stories and the polarized spectrum constituting protagonists vs antagonists.

To this point, understanding Dionea becomes all the more complicated. Particularly through narration, does this story have quite a unique approach towards its presentation of narrative. One could say that Dionea is the protagonist, the main character whom we divert much if not all of our attention too. This is not entirely the case though, as Dr. De Rosis is the narrator, and the perspective guiding the entire story. His opinion of Dionea, though seemingly cruel and illogical, is a lens that we as readers are forced to understand her through.

Dracula follows a similar form of narration, though, rather than just one narrator, there are many in this novel. Many narrators preoccupied with one person: Dracula. Similarly to Dionea, we are never offered Dracula’s perspective. Instead we are provided with others who, maybe you could argue, share cruel opinions of the vampire.

To further compare the characterization of Dionea and Dracula, it’s not hard to see how their characterization is constituted in dehumanization. Dionea is consistently referred to as a “creature” (Lee 11), while Jonathan consistently refers to Dracula as a “lizard” (Stoker 31). These comparisons, while seemingly just minor jabs towards the antagonist (yes Dionea is not an antagonist per say but is treated as one by the narrator), illuminate what can be interpreted as xenophobic narrators fearful of difference.

Throughout Bram Stoker’s Dracula, point of view and narration are undeniably two of the most important factors in interpreting the novel, as they consistently change and affect our understanding of the plot as readers. Not only does the shifting of narration provide different understandings of the plot, but more in-depth characterization of the characters morality and sensibility. Because of this, Dracula can be understood through many different critical lenses, as we, the readers, are simply given more ways that Stoker can illustrate the complex evils of Dracula as understood through the morality of the narrators.

Though evil might actually be a bit harsh for Dracula, as our understanding of him and his wickedness is a result of the narrators’ position towards him. Stoker never grants Dracula any agency in explaining his story or perspective. To the people of England, he is an outsider, who Jonathan goes so far as to even give us a serpent-like description of him. The only perspective of Dracula we receive is from those against him.

So, is Dracula really evil, and if so, who is trusted to qualify him as this?

Particularly through Carol A. Senf’s “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror”,  this topic of narration is further illuminated. As stated, Jonathan sees Dracula as something not only other than himself, but something of an enemy. Without Dracula’s point of view, we’re not entirely sure whether this antagonistic feeling was truly reciprocated by Dracula. Senf, touching on Dracula’s lack of agency regarding narration, explains:

The difficulty in interpreting Dracula’s character is compounded by the narrative technique, for the reader quickly realizes that Dracula is never seen objectively and never permitted to speak for himself while his actions are recorded by people who have determined to destroy him and who, moreover, repeatedly question the sanity of their own quest (Senf 424).

The representation of Dracula, as explained in Senf’s article can be better understood through a psychoanalytic lens. These biases present within the narration not only work to progress the plot but to reveal faults or flaws of character. As the characters “determined to destroy him” also “question the sanity of their own quest”, Senf illuminates a sort of unreliability present through the narration of characters all supporting a similar agenda. Also, I think in raising the question of the “sanity” of the narrators through a psychoanalytic lens, the characters’ explications of their morals provide an understanding of how Dracula is affecting them. Senf poses this as an idea, as she argues that Dracula’s real wickedness affects those from the inside, rather than deliberately harming them. Senf writes: “Although perfectly capable of using superior strength when he must defend himself, he usually employs seduction, relying on the others’ desires to emulate his freedom from external constraints” (Senf 427). Given his mental way of attack, and for the other character’s indulgence in his seduction, the reliability of the narrators of the novel become even more cloudy as their morals are constantly challenged. As Senf argues, the narrators hatred of Dracula likely stems from their inability to mimic his “freedom” from societal norms.

 

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the concepts of life and death are some of the most important motifs throughout the novel, as, aside from the obvious amounts of violence present, characters are dealt with situations that highlight the beliefs on life and death during the Victorian Era.

In chapter 15, Van Helsing confronts situations regarding death when thinking of what to do with Lucy’s dead body after Dracula has killed her.  He thinks intensely of his confusion of whether to respect the dead body or to go through cutting her head off and filling it with garlic. During this process of preparing to perform these rituals, the thought of vandalizing a dead body to this extent is normally unthinkable to someone at the time, (even nowadays, given that I personally haven’t heard of anyone getting their head stuffed with garlic). Though in this situation, Van Helsing doesn’t really think twice about it, and understands the importance of the situation. This adds a level of horror to what is already a scary book, given the differences of norms set in this world and those in the real world. This made me think back to the Longman Anthology, where within a chart of data providing what were common expenses of those of the Victorian Era, a “Respectable Christian Burial” was listed under “Cost of Goods” (1046).
Something else I find interesting in relation to the concept of death as understood in this era is the term “buried life”, especially as examined through a religious lens. The anthology describes this term as “individuals struggling for identity in a commercial, technocratic society” (1069). I think this it is certainly significant to think of this term in regards to what the Anthology coins a “crisis of faith”’ in the Victorian Era. Explained in the Anthology, “The crisis of religious doubt occasioned by biblical scholarship and scientific discoveries hit Christian belief hard” (1056). In taking the two of these terms together, it is likely that people of the Victorian Era lost a sense of identity in their struggle for religious belief. Obviously throughout history, specifically European history, religion has been key to what comprises one’s identity, and the scientific progress and religious doubt of the time would only exacerbate a crisis of identity.

To tie this back into Dracula, maybe this would make the book all the more creepy reading it as a Victorian. This makes me think back to the article from “Transylvania Superstitions”, as I wonder how religion and superstition would interact during the Victorian Era, particularly regarding how one would interpret Dracula. Gerard explains that “superstition in all its manifold varieties constitutes a sort of religion, applicable to the common household necessities of daily life” (Gerard 332). In serving as a “sort of religion” maybe the formulation of such superstitions such as Dracula are to fill the emptiness felt with the “crisis of faith”. To put it more simply, if people are turning away from Catholicism and other mainstream sects of Christianity, what makes some witches and werewolves so much more crazy?