Course Blog

While we have read many interesting articles containing many interesting perspectives on Dracula that offer many different lenses to view the novel through, the one I find particularly interesting and the lens I wish to analyze excerpts of Dracula through is the portion of the novel Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire that we read. This lens offers the idea that homosocial and homosexual desire is present in the relationships between many characters in the novel, meaning same sex social attraction and sexual attraction is present in the characters’ relationships. It is through this lens of homosocial and homosexual desire that Lucy and Mina’s “friendship” can be viewed as something more than just platonic affection.

It is immediately made clear in the novel that Mina and Lucy are incredibly close friends, as they address each other with terms of endearment, signing letters “Your loving,” (Stoker) or even “Ever your loving,” (Stoker). This, right off the bat, demonstrates the deep adoration each woman has for one another. The two make plans to visit Whitby, and the first thing Mina writes of in her journal is how Lucy met her at the station, “… looking sweeter and lovelier than ever” (Stoker). When the book is in Mina’s point of view, a negative comment at the expense of Lucy is never uttered, instead Mina takes every opportunity to compliment Lucy and write about how lovely she is. Besides this, one of the biggest indicators of possible homoerotic desire is the fact that Lucy and Mina share a bed throughout their entire stay in Whitby. This is never outwardly discussed, never questioned by anyone, yet fuels major moments in Lucy and Mina’s relationship. Mina’s accounts from Whitby are full of worry about Lucy because of her behavior at night, ranging from moderate concern about the pallor of Lucy’s skin to physically tucking Lucy into bed after she woke up to find Lucy sitting at the window. It cannot be questioned that the two hold inexplicable affection for one another, and using the part of Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire that we covered furthers this affection to homosocial and homoerotic desire.

In this novel, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick addresses homosexual desire in literature, with the excerpt offered in class focusing on homosocial and homoerotic desire. Sedgwick writes about obligatory heterosexuality, claiming that the heterosexual couple is, essentially, the backbone of patriarchal societies and that homoerotic desire is perceived as a threat to these systems. It would make sense why nobody would question the bizarrely close relationship Lucy and Mina had, as even the thought of something more than just friendship between the two of them ruins two heterosexual relationships – Mina and Jonathan as well as Lucy and Arthur. Additionally, it makes sense that the “friendship” wasn’t questioned as there’s more leeway in female friendships when it comes to the relationship being perceived as platonic or romantic. Sedgwick writes that there are inherent homosocial qualities in platonic feminine relationships, and behaviors that would be considered even homoerotic if they occurred between two men are socially acceptable for two female besties to perform.

They weren’t besties, though. Lucy and Mina’s behaviors point toward a homoerotic relationship, after all, who spends weeks on end sleeping next to and worrying over their friend in such a dramatic manner? The behavior between the two go beyond even homosocial desire, entering the homoerotic zone as they spent countless nights together. The desire between the pair is strong, especially on Mina’s behalf.

Dear readers,

Welcome back. Today, we will be viewing Bram Stoker’s Dracula through the lens of desire. But this time, I’m going to bring in a secondary source of media called Castlevania. For context, Castlevania is a show on Netflix that’s technically considered an anime and based on the 1990 video game Castlevania III: Dracula’s Curse. It’s also where my name comes from though I’m regretfully not the hot and unrealistically jacked son of Dracula. 

Anyways, it’s really interesting actually how both Lucy from Stoker’s Dracula and Dracula’s wife Lisa from Castlevania are very similar in that both are killed for who they become in the eyes of society and men; Lucy is brutally de-vampirized because the gang in Dracula reasons that Lucy is corrupted now. So they have to take it upon themselves to restore her virginity/innocence. Lucy is indeed fatally beautiful but its more about how her new state of desire as a vampire is taboo in a society where women are expected to be pure, compliant, and essentially the lesser man of the two. 

Meanwhile, Lisa is a stunningly attractive blonde-haired white woman like Lucy (coincidence, I think not) but she isn’t a vampire or even turned into one. She is a mortal woman who has a desire to learn the sciences which she then uses to help teach people about science and heal patients as a doctor. Yeah, she’s pretty badass. However, this desire and occupation is just as illicit and consequential as Lucy’s vampire transformation. The Bishop and the church in this show aren’t happy with this science since it goes against their religious community. They decide Lisa is a witch using black magic on the people and hang her on a stake (sound familiar) where she is burned alive. Shocker, religion and a ruthless killing comes into play here too. It seems society doesn’t want beautiful women to be anything other than two dimensional subservients. 

Though Lucy is a literal maneater and Lisa is a woman of science, I would argue that the archetype of the femme fatale still connects them for the double standards of gender that they break. Let me elaborate. Isn’t it intriguing that the novel and the tv show parallel with self-acclaimed righteous men? Is it too much to state that the men in Dracula and the church in Castlevania act in a way they think is justified because they’ve convinced themselves that its for the good of society, when really, it’s their ego and personal beliefs getting in the way?? But by god, the minute a woman shows up acting the way she wants because she desires something more, men basically throw a tantrum and cry “OFF WITH HER HEAD!” Well I guess in this case, it would be stab her in the heart or burn her alive… ouch. My point is, Lucy and Lisa disrupt the order of society for being the abnormal woman and the result is their coordinated deaths. Justice for Lucy and Lisa. 

Until next time,

Alucard

Dear readers, 

Disease is very much present in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. But not in the way you think; No one in Dracula is literally sick with an illness but rather, it is the behavior and spread of vampires along with disturbing scenes that is a disease. Readers, you may be asking why this is. As we briefly mentioned in class, you should understand that “Dis-ease” is the sense of uneasiness. Dracula makes us feel uneasy because of the violence, animalistic sexuality, and depictions of corrupted purity it provokes. 

One of the best examples of this unease is Lucy. “She seemed like a nightmare of Lucy as she lay there ; the pointed teeth, the bloodstained, voluptuous mouth – which it made one shudder to see – the whole carnal and unspiritual appearance, seeming like a devilish mockery of Lucy’ s sweet purity.” (Stoker 366 [online version]) While Lucy is described to be this sexual creature, readers must remember that Lucy is, well, dead. It raises questions of foreshadowing and apprehension: To start, why is Lucy’s purity mentioned in conjunction with her new vampire self? And to end with the most disturbing, why is a corpse being viewed with a “voluptuous mouth” in such an attentive sexual matter? 

What’s even more puzzling is Lucy’s feeding habits as a new vampire. Readers, did you notice how she only sucked children’s blood?? I know we read this and think huh thats kind of, just a LITTLE, bit pedophilic. And you’re not wrong. But perhaps this is just because Lucy is what we have coined as a “baby” vampire so she’s only starting off on little kids. But what if there was more to it? What if we’re meant to understand this as Lucy trying to purify herself with children who are the epitome of innocence? Let us delve even deeper into the possibilities. Lucy as a now tainted “virgin”, as Stoker describes her, is now corrupting other innocents. Regardless of what the answer may be, I believe that Lucy and her victims are a metaphor that signifies the spread of infection/disease.  

Sincerely,

Alucard 

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.

In the late 19th century Victorians heavily feared the degeneration and fall of the British Empire. In Sally Ledger and Robert Luckhurst’s introduction to “Reading the ‘Fin De Siècle’” they write about the culture’s interest in stories with “exotic, imperial terrors” which was the worry that the British Empire would be taken over by foreigners (Leder and Lockhurst xvi). This fear is fully explored in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, where the character Count Dracula is a vampire from an exotic country who is believed to have emigrated to England and spread his vampiric disease. However, Carol A. Senf in her essay, “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror” Carol A. Senf writes about how the novel’s subjective perspective contributed to the negative view of Dracula and considers a more sympathetic retelling of the Count. I plan to use Carol A. Senf’s alternative analysis of Dracula to view and think about the Count as an immigrant. 

The characters in Dracula perceive the Count as morally evil which makes them create a negative view of him in the novel. Dracula is driven away from England by the other characters but Doctor Van Helsing tells them that still must go after him. When one of them questions this idea Van Helsing describes to them what he feels Dracula’s intentions are, 

“He find out the place of all the world most of promise for him. Then he deliberately set himself down to prepare for the task…He study new tongues. He learn new social life; new environment of old ways…the habit of a new land and a new people …His glimpse that he had, whet his appetite only and enkeen his desire” (Stoker 317).

The reasoning that Van Helsing gives why the Count found the place that had the most “promise for him” which in this case is England is implied to be sinister. This reasoning is given when Van Helsing warns that Dracula’s experience in England has, “whet his appetite” and he is theorizing that Dracula is not finished with the country and that as long as he has the chance to come back he is a danger to them. In this same scene, Dracula is also described as a “monster” and throughout the novel, he is given other unfavorable descriptions. In the chosen quote Van Helsing does not use condemning adjectives to describe Dracula but even in moments where Dracuala is not being compared to the devil there is an negative view that it meant to be reflected on the readers. 

In “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror” Senf scrutinizes the other characters in Dracula to prove that the view of the Count in the novel is subjective and reimagines a more sympathetic version of Dracula. In her essay, Senf writes that Dracula is never perceived in an objective way because he cannot speak for himself and the attributes he receives are instead dependent on characters who want to destroy him (Senf 424). Senf challenges the subjective view presented in Dracula by mentioning the other characters’ equally dubious actions and she writes how “It becomes difficult to determine whether he [Dracula] is a hideous bloodsucker…or a lonely sound figure who is haunted and persecuted” (Senf 424). These ideas help consider a more sympathetic view of Dracula in an eye-opening way since the narrative works so well against him. In their subjective view all the characters actions are justified even if the constantly question their own sanity and continue to commit crimes. In her essay Senf permits a sympathetic portrayal of Dracula because that’s what the other characters in the novel are given.

An additional sympathetic view of Dracula could reclaim him as an immigrant. If the aforementioned quote is analyzed with the subjective perspective Senf mentions, it is easier to understand why Van Helsing’s theory about Dracula’s evil reasoning behind his actions is posited as fact. Dracula does not get to explain his intentions so they remain unknown to readers. However, if Van Helsing’s words are removed from their condemning context the actions that Dracula commits are like those of immigrants. Similar to how the doctor describes Dracula, immigrants often desire to find a place that offers them the “most promise” and do what they can to adapt to the culture of their new country. Additionally, at the beginning of Dracula, before the Count is given an unfavorable view he discusses how a foreigner is “a stranger in a strange land, he is no one” and how he would be “content if I am like the rest, so that no man stops…in his speaking if he hear my words, ‘Ha, ha! a stranger!’” (Stoker 45). Dracula admits the fears that he has about his move to England. Similar to an immigrant the vampire fears being discriminated against because they are seen as different. This further contributes to the sympathetic lens of the Count since Stoker makes him a dynamic character who like the others can have fear. 

The negative perception of the Count in Dracula came from Stoker entertaining the idea of “reverse imperialism.” This fear that the England empire was going to be taken over by foreigners was a common occurrence during the end of the century. However this fear that is hypocritical since Britain colonized many other countries. So not only that the Victorians feel themselves to be superior to the countries they conquered since they only care if their country is taken over but that their fear of foreigners was due solely to their status as immigrants. When Dracula is taken out of his negative context he is able to reveal the immigrant’s side of this and share the very real fears that they had in a way that begins to consider their stories.

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.

In her introduction to Between Men, Eve Sedwick draws upon queer theory to explore the continuum of male homosocial desire in literature. Sedgwick argues that there is a difference in our society between “the relatively continuous relation of female homosocial and homosexual bonds” and “the radically discontinuous relation of male homosocial and homosexual bonds” (5). Essentially, she argues that for women, homosocial and homosexual bonds don’t fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from each other, but that homosocial bonds can describe the whole continuum; however, she argues that for men, homosocial bonds are markedly different from homosexual bonds. Furthermore, Sedgwick suggests that the reason that we can’t say that male homosocial and homosexual bonds are on the same continuum is because homophobia is necessary to maintain a heterosexual marital institution. Therefore, men work hard to ensure that their homosocial relationships aren’t erotic. When looking at Dracula through the lens of Sedgwick’s argument, we talked in class about the distinct moments where Stoker’s male characters seem to be encroaching on a homosexual relationship. However, Sedgwick’s argument fails to account for the moments we discussed where Mina and Lucy also exhibit homosexual behaviors, not just a homosocial bond, and how the book works to maintain heterosexuality.

To follow Sedgwick’s argument would entail us to view Mina’s obsession with Lucy and her appearance as simply being part of homosocial bonds. However, our class discussions have called out the times where their relationship crosses into more erotic territory. When Mina and Lucy visit the graveyard, Mina recounts how they sat together, saying “it was all so beautiful before us that we took hands as we sat” (Stoker, 76). One could argue that the two women holding hands is erotic because it is a display of desire. Sedgwick might counter that to say that Mina and Lucy holding hands still exhibits a homosocial bond because homosocial bonds in women can include eroticism, but male homosocial bonds can’t include eroticism because “homophobia is a necessary consequence of such patriarchal institutions as heterosexual marriage” (Sedgwick, 3). However, immediately after Mina’s description of them holding hands, she says, “and she told me all over again about Arthur and their coming marriage” (Stoker, 76). For this reminder of heterosexuality to so closely accompany a display of physical affection between women suggests a need to counter any assumptions of homosexuality between Mina and Lucy, like what Sedgwick suggests men have to do.

We talked in class about Mina’s obsession with Lucy; how she looks, where she sleeps. At one point, Mina describes Lucy as having “more colour in her cheeks than usual, and looks, oh, so sweet” (Stoker, 99). Her attentiveness to Lucy’s appearance and well-being appears to be more than the behavior of two friends. At another point, when Lucy is getting up in the night and getting dressed, Mina describes how she “managed to undress [Lucy] without waking her, and got her back to bed” (Stoker, 96). Reading through the lens of Sedgwick, these actions still fall under the umbrella of homosocial bonds for women; however, the fact that both Mina and Lucy are in romantic relationships with other men lends itself to there being an “‘obligatory heterosexuality’” that “is built into” both “male-dominated kindship systems” as well as female relationships (Sedgwick, 3).

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Chapter XVI explores the tribulations that the Crew of Light endured in hunting down Lucy’s body to properly dispose of it permanently and amend it to her proper pure form. Christopher Craft wrote a scholarly article,“‘Kiss Me with The Red Lips’: Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” discussing the anxieties present in late Victorian culture revolving around desire, gender, and sexual inversion. Lucy’s initial conversion to vampirism catapults anxiety as all her doting suitors try to help her in any way possible while simultaneously detesting her new devilish form.

Lucy is privileged enough through her beauty to have a band of men willing to not only donate blood but kill Dracula to restore her tainted name and to a lesser degree save humanity from further bloodshed. The Crew of Light’s main intention was to “fix” Lucy from her warped, vampiric ways by each taking a turn at transfusing blood to satisfy her hunger, however, ultimately futile that is when the crew rethinks their master plan and redirect their frustrations on Dracula’s penetrations. Craft believes Van Helsing sees merit in “corrective penetration” acting as “a masculine prerogative” where “a woman is better still than mobile, better dead than sexual” (Craft 455). Thus, the men band together to come up with a plan to penetrate Lucy with a wooden stake and decapitate her to allow her soul to rest in heaven. Although the crew works under the guise of restoring Lucy’s corrupted soul, they still inflict masculine authority such as referencing the bible as “him” from which they will read to complete the ritual. Personifying the bible as a masculine being further reiterates the notion that men must be in positions of authority even in situations where they may physically and emotionally be inferior to such supernatural beings. Craft agrees that the novel believes “the penis shall not be erased, and if it is erased, that it shall be reinscribed in a perverse simulacrum” (Craft 453). Men are not allowed to be subverted and if their authority is challenged it must work to reestablish the hierarchical gender norms prevalent at this time.

Although Arthur had to “share” Lucy when asking other members of the Crew of Light to donate blood he restates his position as “top dog,” since he is the fiancé, by being the chosen one to kill Lucy. Once Arthur’s “mind was set on action his hands never trembled nor even quivered,” meaning he never displayed hesitation in mutilating his fiancée (Stoker 230). Arthur, as her Fiancé, felt authorized to save Lucy’s tainted soul and rightly return her to her pure self. He felt so confident in his role as the masculine partner saving her soul that he did not feel the need to hesitate in fixing what was rightly “his.” His marriage was prematurely taken away by Dracula’s initial vampiric penetration, but Arthur triumphs over the Count as he permanently sets Lucy to rest. Throughout this chapter the Crew of Light belittles Lucy through dehumanizing language, effectively asserting their authority above female agency. They constantly describe Lucy as a monster, devil, or “foul thing” (Stoker 231). The diction used here to describe Lucy’s passing comes straight from a horror novel as she contorts her body like a supernatural creature such as the exorcist or the grudge. She also died like a rabid animal with “crimson foam” at her mouth and penetrating her own mouth with her fangs insinuating she was behaving maniacal (Stoker 230).

Although Lucy behaved outside of her gender norms by engaging in sexual promiscuity and endangering children, Arthur, as her fiancé, must work to reassert his position over her by killing her. This novel is too afraid to provocatively “go there” without affording the male, “righteous” characters an opportunity to reestablish gender hierarchies. The inversion of the penis cannot remain this way, Craft illuminates the anxieties of its time to validate the correct forms of penetration where it must fall within matrimony and between a woman and a man.

The last page of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula is weird. There is no other way to describe the ending of this wild, interesting, and anxious piece of Victorian Literature. The goal of this blog post will be to analyze the “Note” in the context of Eve’s Sedgwick’s theory of homosocial desire.

Jonathan and Mina choose to name their son after not only Quincey but the rest of the group of men as well, “His bundle of names links all our little band together; but we call him Quincey” (Stoker, 402). This is the first many times in the final section of the novel were Stoker makes great effort to permanently link the group together. In more modern installments in the horror genre, Stephen King for example, it is enough that the group of hero’s are bonded by their shared experience as monster hunters. Yet, in this case that is not acceptable. Stoker goes to great lengths to link the men beyond their connection as destroyers of evil, and maintainers of the status-quo. Instead, the story must have links such as the name of Jonathan and Mina’s son.

These links serve two purposes in the novel: first it allows for the separation of acceptable homosocial bonds, and unacceptable homosexual or homoerotic bonds between the main male characters. The second being that they rely on each other to rationalize their experience. If just one of them had seen the actions Dracula or the Weird Sisters it would read as the ravings of a mad man, yet their combined telling provides legitimacy to the narrative.

This secondary reason is a main theme of the last page of the novel. The group revisits the scene of their final battle or crime, depending on your perspective, of the book seven years in the future. Jonathan, in his recounting, states that the castle and everything else is as it was on the date of their great triumph. His recounting reads as an attempt to convince not only the reader, but himself of what occurred there. The last paragraph of the novel further affirms their uncertainty about their experience:

“’We want no proofs; we ask none to believe us! This boy will some day know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is. Already he knows her sweetness and loving care; later on he will understand how some men loved her so, that they did dare much for her sake’” (402).

First, Van Helsing excepts no one to believe their story because of how outlandish it is. Yet, the reader is also presented with interesting language about the cause of their journey. That the reason the men went to Transylvania is because of their love of Mina. Which in turn implies that their bond is formed out of concern for the safety, and future of a woman they love. Thus, Stoker presents further evidence that the only way men can comfortably interact with each other or have any kind of relationship in through women. A Woman must be the reason why the men are brought together. Thus, we see the breakdown between homosocial and homosexual desire in Stoker’s Dracula.

Themes of Good vs. Evil and Sin vs. Virtue are at the heart of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Immediately there is strong opposition between a fearless band of heroes and the demonic-beast Dracula. Through the binaries these oppositional identities create, Stoker projects ideas of Imperialism and Christian hegemony to create a highly fictionalized tale rooted in the actual world. Carol Senf does not ignore this discourse, and in Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror she dissects the “real” differences between the “heroes’ ‘ and “villains” of the nineteenth century novel. Although the gang of heroes uphold a “moral backbone” to justify their actions, it is evident that the story of Dracula is not as simple as separating Good from Evil. 

Because of the epistolary format of Stoker’s Dracula, the reader is immediately immersed in a set point of view. Proper Englishman, Jonathan Harker is the first of the gang to experience the evil of Dracula, and describes him with “deep burning eyes” reminiscent of the “demons of the pit” and “flames of hell” (Stoker 44/55). The Count is akinned to images of Hell and Satan, and his home, Transylvania, is more broadly depicted as a “cursed land, where the devil and his children” are “fearless without religion” (Stoker 57). Dracula and the “way of life which he represents” is composed of everything “other” and therefore explicitly evil (Senf 425). Therefore, Dracula must be the incarnation of everything Empirical English society fears – making him into an antichrist, and everyone else as a necessary savior. 

Polar imagery and societal ideas influence this reading of Dracula as completely oppositional to the English world the gang inhabits. Our band of heroes takes on a collective voice, even though they are each representative of different classic literary archetypes. Just as Dracula is meant to represent all evil, they collectively represent all good as it is defined by English morality. Through this, the gang of heroes is able to wield their perceived morality and justness against Dracula to justify their gory acts of violence. Because these characters use their “rigorous moral arguments” to justify their wrongdoings, the reader’s perception of their evils are never equated to that of Dracula’s. Regardless of the similarities between the actions (Senf 425). This “moral blindness” is indicative of the narrator’s inability to objectively see their own actions, and the reader’s perception of the story through the “heroes” eyes (Senf 425). 

The lens of morality as it is understood by Christian society ignores the gang’s inherent wrong doings. This is especially present at the grave of Lucy Westerna, who, subjected to the evil of Dracula, has become completely unrecognizable. The once virginal image of Lucy is now overtaken by demonic powers of evil; her “sweetness turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty” and her “purity to voluptuous wantonness” (Stoker 199). Lucy must undergo this complete formal shift for the men’s violent murder of her to be justified. If her purity was not “stained” then her murder would be an unjust one, but because she has been overtaken by the powers of evil and sin as they are represented in Dracula, she is deserving of death (Stoker 200). Through this lens, the murder of Lucy Westerna is deemed a necessary saving instead of a merciless homicide. 

Because of the subjectivity of the journal entries and letters the story is composed of, the average reader of Dracula is going to align with the gang’s own justification of the violence they commit. Neither their morality or actions are ever called into question on the basis that religious individuals can never commit sin or sinful acts. It is this perceived “duty to defend innocents” that grants the heroes their titles, regardless of the similarities between their actions and The Counts’. The concealment of objectivity through the epistolary narrative therefore protects the gang under England’s guiding “rubric of religion” (Senf 428). Moral duty is the sole justification the band has against their actions, and without the influence of Christian, English society the lines between good and evil become blurred.  Therefore, Dracula must draw on cultural representations of fear for the book to be read in such a subjective manner.