Course Blog

In Professor Seiler’s Feminist Genres course, We are reading Pale Horse, Pale Rider by Katherine Anne Porter, a semi-autobiographical novella written in the stream of conscious style about the influenza epidemic of 1918. The narrator, Miranda, navigates her succumbing to influenza alongside spending her last moments with her lover, Adam, before he goes off to fight in WWI. Unlike Dracula by Bram Stoker, Pale Horse, Pale Rider is a dizzying, busy read; from Miranda’s job at a newspaper office, to rude Liberty Bond salesmen, to funerals, to rendez-vous with Adam, and finally Miranda’s fall to her recovery of influenza. Amidst the war panic, the American government is selling Liberty Bonds to raise capital for war efforts. After a conversation with the pushy Liberty Bond salesmen, Miranda decides, “Everybody was suffering, naturally. Everybody had to do his share… it was just a pledge of good faith on her part. A pledge of good faith that she was a loyal American doing her duty.” (Porter, 273) The pages about Liberty Bonds inflict a sense of nationalism as well as panic and pressure to do the right thing and be a good American, even if you don’t have money for liberty bonds like miranda. The sense of nationalism and fear is reflected in Miranda’s disease induced dream as she is in the hospital. The text states, “…Hildesheim is a Boche, a spy, a Hun, kill him, kill him before he kills you…” (Porter, 309) Here, Hildesheim is Miranda’s doctor, however the atmospheric chaos of the disease and war cause Miranda to be paranoid of her German doctor, hence the terms used in the text and at the time in history “Boche” and “Hun,” both terms that have a negative connotation of a person from outside American, especially during WWI. To add to the atmosphere of disease, Miranda often comments on her dis-ease, for example, “‘There’s something terribly wrong,’ she told Adam. ‘I feel too rotten. It can’t just be the weather, and the war.’” (Porter, 282) In this quote, Miranda acknowledges both fictional atmosphere; the weather, and the tonal atmosphere; influenza and the war. The atmosphere of the novella is that of illness and war panic, and overall dis-ease and discomfort on behalf of Miranda. The same can be said of Dracula. 

In Dracula, the disease and the threat to nationalism is symbolized through the vampires which creates the atmosphere of dis-ease and fear among the British men. It is a known fact that vampires bite the necks of their victims and suck their blood. A classmate brought up the sexual undertones of this action; thinking about biting, sucking and transmitting disease which can be seen as actions of a fictional character or that of sex. Throughout the novel, vampires are referred to as “monsters” and “evil,” making them outsiders to the group of (mostly) British white men, plus Mina and Lucy. Viewing the Transylvanian, non-British vampires as outsiders is xenophobia. Of course, Dracula is the main outsider, however, in A Capital Dracula Franco Moretti makes the argument that Morris, The American, is an “accomplice” to Dracula and possibly a vampire himself, therefore has to die in the end. Moretti points out Morris is the first character to use the word “vampire” (chapter 21). Moretti writes, “To make Morris a vampire would mean accusing capitalism directly: or rather accusing Britain, admitting that it is Britain herself that has given birth to the monster.” (Moretti, 436) In other words (ignoring Moretti’s analysis of capitalism and focusing on xenophobia/nationalism), assuming Morris is a vampire, Britain would take the blame because, even though Morris is not British, he was in the country and able to breed more “monsters,” possibly as an extension of Dracula according to Moretti. This spreading of vampirism/disease by Morris is demonstrated by the blood transfusion from Morris to Lucy, which Moretti claims possibly caused Lucy’s change into a vampire, which created dis-ease among the men. Although the transmission is not through sexual biting or sucking, the disease of vampirism is spread via blood, similar to a sexually transmitted disease. Even though Morris is a white male from America, he is the foreigner friend of the British group of men, therefore there is still a sense of xenophobia and dis-ease, as Morris is the only man out of the group to die, furthering the theme of British nationality in Dracula.

I believe that re-analyzing Stoker’s Dracula through Christopher Craft’s “‘Kiss Me with Those Red Lips’: Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is an essential part of understanding the novel as a whole. Accounting for many of the other articles we have read for class, providing information relating to the time period and the varied internalized crises relating to the changing time, Craft’s analysis of Dracula through with a focus towards sexuality and gender offers deeper insight into the metaphors and commentaries of the novel. In my previous blog post, I analyzed the ways in which Lucy’s transformation into vampirism corrupted her feminine purity on multiple levels: sexual, religious, and social. Craft delves further into the ways vampirism is a corrupting force on a religious and social level because its first corruption is sexual.

Here, we take “sexual” to be intertwined with sex as a penetrative act and sex as it distinguishes gender: the vampire blurs this boundary of what sex means within the binary of a person, as Victorian England understood a “person” to be. Through the “subversion of conventional Victorian gender codes”, Craft writes, Stoker perpetuates a feeling of anxiety throughout the entirety of Dracula (444). By repeatedly reinforcing that Stoker is creating anxiety, Craft establishes the imagery of the vampiric mouth as the central focus in the confusion of sexuality and gender delivered by vampires.

Where in my analysis of the vampire-Lucy’s confrontation with the Core Four of the novel I initially observed that the focus on her mouth brought to mind sexual undertones, I also attributed it to the vampire’s means of both feeding and spreading her corruption to others. Craft in no way refutes this, but he takes this shallow analysis further, questioning the vampiric mouth in its refusal to obey the gender binary. “Are we male or are we female? Do we have penetrators or orifices? …Furthermore, this mouth, bespeaking the subversion of the stable and lucid distinctions of genders, is the mouth of all vampires, male and female” (446).

Craft sets up the importance of the literal penetration required by vampires to both feed and to spread their vampirism early, referencing Jonathan Harker’s experience with the vampire wives. He emphasizes the ways in which these vampiric women and Harker’s experience with them inverts the traditional male and female roles of penetration, dominance, and submission (444). He goes beyond this inversion to bring attention to Dracula’s fixation on Harker himself, and the way in which this fixation heightens the anxiety Stoker creates throughout the novel, that “Dracula will seduce, penetrate, and drain another male” (446). Craft emphasizes this as “monstrous heterosexuality”, as it uses both the gendered and sexual confusion presented by Dracula as a character to twist the heterosexual normality required by the time; after all, Craft writes, “only through women may men touch” in Dracula (448).

The most crucial part of Craft’s analysis is that he attributes the physical act of penetration as a masculine device. As masculinity was considered the pinnacle of Victorian society in terms of social standing and morality, this attribution is significant. The vampiric mouth, Craft writes, is a form of “deformed femininity” – even in Dracula himself, because the mouth brings to mind imagery of female genitalia. Vampiric penetration is a corrupting force: it sexualizes Lucy Westenra and threatens both her and Mina Harker’s feminine purity. Because of this corruption, the demonic forces produced by it require “corrective penetration”, done by the pious, mortal men (450, italics added).

Van Helsing, like Dracula, is foreign. He is differentiated by his his almost fanatic piety. It is Van Helsing that creates in Mina an almost religious vessel, touting her to be “one of God’s women”, Van Helsing who drives the Core Four in their hunt to rid the vampiric forces from English soil, Van Helsing who carries the primary religious implements crucial in completing the acts of destruction. It is because of Van Helsing’s religious fervor that he is able to utilize parallel penetrative implements to initiate the “corrective penetration” (450). He is able to perform blood transfusions for Lucy (penetrating her via needle), and provides similarly phallic-like objects such as crosses and stakes when it appears that it is necessary to escalate the penetration. Lucy’s “corrective penetration” is viscerally similar to rape; because Lucy has been corrupted in both her gender and sexually, Van Helsing is forced to exorcise the challenge to his ordered, binary understanding of acceptable gender roles that Dracula creates.

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.

 

To set the scene, at the end of his essay “’Kiss Me with Those Red Lips’: Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker’s Dracula” Christopher Crest makes the claim that Little Quincey, Jonathan and Mina’s baby born on exactly the one-year anniversary of big Quincey’s death could represent “the restoration of ‘natural’ order” but a sub-reading could be that his is the “son of an illicit and nearly invisible homosexual union” (Crest 458-459). He cites the line: “His [Little Quincey’s] bundle of names links all out little band of men together” (Stoker 402) to form his idea that “Little Quincey was luridly conceived in the veins of Lucy…and then deftly relocated to the purer body of Mina…” (Crest 459). Crest also spends much of his essay building on the idea that “Van Helsing stands as the protector of the patriarchal institutions” (449).  

I can see why Craft makes this claim; as we’ve discussed in class, Dracula threatens patriarchal heterosexual society, and Van Helsing is the one who leads the hunt and has the knowledge to take Dracula down. And yes, Van Helsing does call Mina “one of God’s women” (201), which Crest sees as Van Helsing putting women into boxes (Mina’s a good, pure woman, which “determines and delimits the range of activity permitted to [her]” [Crest 450]). But I didn’t really find Van Helsing any more patriarchal or defensive of heterosexual society than any of the other characters. He and Dr. Seward both find ways to exclude Mina from the action, and Jonathan was very enthusiastic about protecting England from a vampire takeover. For me, none of the arguments Crest made about Van Helsing being a “protector of the patriarchy” didn’t seem to be unique to his character; all of the men in the novel had the same end goal and they all played a part in depriving Mina of any power. Van Helsing was just the oldest and most knowledgeable about vampires. 

I think that these ideas can shed an interesting light on the final paragraph of Dracula. In the scene Jonathan describes, Van Helsing is holding baby Quincey and says (about their whole vampire-killing adventure): “’We want no proofs; we ask none to believe us! This boy will someday know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is” (402). On the one hand, this seems like a reversal of the role Crest puts Van Helsing in—one could easily say Jonathan had been brave, escaping from the castle, wanting to protect his wife, stabbing Dracula, but Van Helsing singles out Mina instead, using words associated with knightliness, which was the expectation of an extremely patriarchal and male-oriented society. Either Van Helsing’s character changed within a page and seven years, or he wasn’t nearly as patriarchy-loving as Crest claimed, which makes more sense to me. Crest’s claim about Van Helsing’s role would make more sense at the end, I think, if one were to read Little Quincey as a restoration of “rightness”, but Crest puts down that idea in favor of the baby being the child of all the men in the novel. If this were the case, wouldn’t the final scene probably not be Van Helsing bouncing the illicit baby on his knee? 

I think this final scene does cast Van Helsing as a protective character, but not of the patriarchy, of Jonathan and Mina and their baby. He was one of the only people of the generation before Dr. Sewards who did not die. In an odd way, I think his connection to superstitions and what the Victorians would consider the past makes him less of a proponent of patriarchy than some of the other characters. Lucy’s mom was probably around the same age as Van Helsing, and she left nothing to her daughter in her will. It all went to Lord Godalming (178). I feel like if Van Helsing were of the same patriarchal state of mind, he would have dismissed the silly superstitions of the non-British and diagnosed Lucy as crazy or having a wandering uterus or something instead of taking her symptoms seriously. 

The Gothic novel Dracula is often praised for its fearsome nature, for its terrible monsters aimed to both horrify and terrify the audience. Bram Stoker translates this horror through the collection of documents and diaries that the main characters narrate together. As Senf points out, all of the narrators are human and they band together against the evil Count Dracula, but the vampire himself doesn’t narrate a single line in the story (424). Along with this narrative bias, Senf shows that Stoker’s young and inexperienced character with limited expertise are “ill-equipped to judge the extraordinary events with which they are faced” (423). Taking on Senf’s view that the narrators are unreliable, Dracula’s motives throughout the book, while still a mystery, shouldn’t immediately be assumed as evil.

During his stay at Dracula’s castle, Harker claims that he is a prisoner (33). The Count, however, tells Harker that “Not an hour shall you wait in my house against your will” (57). Dracula reassures Harker that he doesn’t intend to keep him against his will, like a prison, but Harker doubts Dracula’s good intentions every step of the way. Even at the door about to depart, Harker finds wolves with “champing teeth” blocking the door. Since the Dracula commands the wolves, Harker assumes “I was to be given to the wolves…There was a diabolical wickedness in the idea great enough for the Count” and Harker decides not to leave until morning. (58). Despite Dracula promising to let Harker leave whenever he wanted and constantly calling him a friend, Harker believes the Count would be “wicked” enough to feed him to wolves. But what if Harker gave up too early, right before Dracula had the chance to call off the wolves? The wolves may be bloodthirsty by nature, but Dracula never let any harm come to Harker while he stayed in the castle.

Throughout Harker’s stay in the Transylvanian Castle, Dracula both warns and protects Harker from supernatural harm. Earlier, Dracula warned “let me warn you with all seriousness, that should you leave these rooms you will not by any chance go to sleep in any other part of the castle…there are bad dreams for those who sleep unwisely” (40). When Harker disregards this warning and sleeps in a different room, three bloodthirsty vampires appear and Harker remarks “I thought at the time I must be dreaming” (44). Before they can suck Harker’s blood, Dracula stops them and reminds them he had “forbidden” anyone to touch Harker (46). Here Dracula has saved Harker from supernatural harm he didn’t know existed. Dracula’s warning, as well, guides Harker to the safest parts of the castle without explicitly stating the terrifying truth of the existence of vampires. Dracula claims “bad dreams” come to those who sleep outside their room, and the three vampires are dream-like in their vampiric beauty and how their trance connected to some “dreamy fear” (45). Even though Harker often finds his bedroom door “had been locked after I left the Count” (59), trapping him as if it were a prison, Dracula more likely locked the vampires out of Harker’s room rather than lock him in. Similar to how Dracula commands the wolves, he commands the other vampires, and he let neither harm Harker at any time.

Yet Harker is convinced Dracula is planning to kill him purely on the basis that “He knows that I know too much, and that I must not live, lest I be dangerous to him” (49). This basis is more of an assumption, since Dracula has constantly protected Harker from harm. Despite Harker’s fears of murder, he returns home physically unharmed, but with mental shock. Shock is natural—supernatural creatures don’t exist in the everyday world, and Harker just met multiple vampires. Still Harker survived his visit to the castle, mostly thanks to the Count. Dracula never let the wolves or other vampires touch Harker at any point in the visit, nor did he suck Harker’s blood himself, nor did he kill Harker instead of releasing him. Harker’s resulting mental shock relates to “the question of sanity,” which Senf psychoanalyzes the many times the character question their own sanity, including that Harker suffered “a nervous breakdown” after leaving the castle (424). Perhaps Dracula was self-aware to know that humans would go mad if they knew of blood-sucking vampires, and so he hid the truth from Harker. But the human narrators, too mentally unstable to face supernatural terrors, couldn’t conceive the possibility of a supernatural vampire simply acting friendly.

Since its original publication, Dracula has been changed and so have vampires in general. In class, we discussed a lot about sexual repression in the novel, particularly surrounding Lucy. In the 1992 adaptation of Dracula, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” with Gary Oldman, there is light shed on the sexual repression. In this post I will be focusing on the movie poster (at the bottom of the post) as the setup of it is a lens itself. In the poster, the main spotlight is Dracula holding Mina with her head tilted back and eyes closed. On the poster she is seen in a dress that is very low on her shoulders and shows a lot of skin. This showing of skin shows her freedom from sexual repression as she is now open about her clothing and under her it says, “love never dies.” In this regard, the poster shows this idea that Dracula grants Mina sexual freedom. Viewing the novel from the lens of the movie poster, it can be interpreted that Dracula was in fact freeing the women and giving them their desires instead of holding them back or “killing” them. Using the catchphrase “love never dies,” vampires themselves (the undead) can be interpreted as love. In the novel, Lucy states “being proposed to is all very nice and all that sort of thing, but it isn’t at all a happy thing when you have to see a poor fellow, whom you know loves you honestly, going away and looking all broken hearted” (Stoker 65). In this scene, Lucy is writing to Mina about how she turned away from two of her suitors and had to reject them. However, when Dracula bites her, she fully gives in and tilts her head back for his bite. In this way, she desires Dracula and while the men may see this as a “magic power” he must seduce them, to Lucy she does not have to see a poor fellow go away sad because she wants this fellow. Also, her use of the word “nice” when talking about being proposed to is a very soft word, seeing Dracula as a lover instead of an evil monster, this word has a deeper meaning. While these human men are “nice” and “ok,” Dracula is passionate and especially according to this movie poster based on choice of actor, he is a “heartthrob.”

Another quote by Lucy furthers this idea that Dracula is a representation of love, especially one that grants sexual freedom. “I suppose that we women are such cowards that we think a man will save us from fears, and we marry him” (Stoker 66). This quote can be read as the fear of their own sexuality. In Victorian times, women were seen as pure and not sexual beings. Lucy, however, is very sexual as she says previously that if she could marry multiple men, she would do that. Even later in the novel, she has the blood of four men in her (which means she belongs to all of them). Instead of putting blood in her like the men do, Dracula takes it out of her, therefore claiming her and having her inside him. By being the one with her blood in him, he takes the role of the bride and grants Lucy her sexual freedom instead of her belonging to him. He also does the same to Mina and if we read Dracula through this lens of erotic and sexual freedom like the movie poster hints at, he is sort of a hero in our standards. Instead of taking away their freedom and trying to keep them pure, he lets them suck his blood and sucks theirs as well. Instead of forcing a blood transfusion on them, he gives them a choice and Mina and Lucy decide to love him and find their freedom in this way. Not only this, but he does not appear in mirrors, he does not have to face himself and have “morals,” instead he can choose to act and not necessarily have remorse. Dracula viewed through the lens of the 1992 poster is less scary and more so alluring and attractive unlike older depictions where he is hideous and purely evil. When looking at the poster, you feel drawn to Dracula and Mina’s life does not seem completely unpleasant.

Like most women written by men, the women in Dracula by Bram Stoker are shallow and lack character development. One can argue that Lucy is a round character, because she turns into a vampire, but is that really character development or a poke at the “New Woman” by Bram Stoker? According to Sally Ledger and Roger Luckhurst in Reading the ‘Fin de siècle,’ the “New Woman” can be interpreted/read two ways: a more positive image of sexual liberation and independence or the negative aspects of breaking social norms such as motherhood and the nuclear family.

In Dracula, Mina is a symbol of what is good about the “New Woman;” she works but is still a dutiful, loving wife, while Lucy symbolizes the moral and sexual corruption of the “New Woman.” Mina writes, “We women have something of the mother in us that makes us rise above smaller matters when the mother-spirit is invoked…” (Stoker, 245) Stoker uses the imagery of the mother to paint Mina positively according to social norms of the time; she always thinks of her husband, she wants to be a mother and she works, but not too much that she neglects her tasks as a woman. He uses the word “spirit” and “invoked” combined with “mother” to further claim that all women have this innate motherly sense, as all humans have spirits (if that is what you believe, if not call it gothic and go with it), which contrasts Lucy’s actions when she eats a child, furthering Lucy as the extreme negative outcome of the “New Woman.” 

A few pages before, Stoker writes, “She seemed like a nightmare of Lucy as she lay there; pointed teeth, the bloodstained, voluptuous mouth – which it made one shutter to see – the whole carnal and unspiritual appearance, seeming like a devilish mockery of Lucy’s sweet purity.” (Stoker, 228) Although the first quote is not a direct description of Mina, the two quotes have very different tones, clearly contrasting the women as the two aspects of the “New Woman.” Specifically, the description of Lucy’s mouth is very sexual, utilizing creepy words such as “pointed,” “bloodstained,” “voluptuous” and “carnal,” harking on the sexual corruption aspect of the “New woman.” In a long winded way, Stoker is saying Lucy is no longer pure. If the reader still did not pick up on the implicit, Stoker explicitly states, “…a devilish mockery of Lucy’s sweet purity,” creating a relationship between the evil and “sweet” Lucy. 

Through the contrast of pure Mina and corrupt Lucy, Stoker cautions against the “New Woman” in the Fin de Siècle era. Stoker uses sensationalism to provoke curiosity of the corrupt imagery of vampires and Lucy-turned-vampire to show the dangers of the abandonment of gender roles, specifically motherhood in the Victorian Era. Ledger and Luckhurst note that the double standard of the “New Woman” brought forth “..productive sites for thinking through the articulation of gender with other significant markers of identity.” (Ledger and Luckhurst, 18) So, some positive social change was made as a result of the “New Woman”, contrasting Stoker’s negative depiction of the movement in Dracula. Although Lucy is not a direct “outspoken attack on male sexuality,” as self proclaimed novelist, Sarah Grand is described as by Ledger and Luckhurst, still Lucy and her vamperic, child eating, motherhood abandoning, sexual advances are a threat to Victorian culture as Bram Stoker knows it. (Ledger and Luckhurst, 17)

Locations have been a vital part of the story of Dracula so far as there are notable settings like Count Dracula’s castle in Transylvania which is explained in detail by Jonathon’s time there. Of all the places the characters travel to and explore, certain locations are backed by the superstition of vampires, seeing as this is a novel focused on them. Connecting to another text, Emily Gerard specifically talks about the history of superstitions and the locations attached to them in Transylvanian Superstitions (1885). Two important elements of superstition Gerard notes are “the indigenous superstition of the country” and “the spirit of evil” (332-333), which focus on the actual location superstitions are known to appear and their evil nature.

Transitioning to Dracula, the location of the graveyard at the church is essential in chapters 15 and 16 as this is where Lucy is found to be a vampire and killed by the men of the novel. Dr. Seward described the tomb as “grim and gruesome enough…miserable and sordid than could have been imagined. It conveyed irresistibly the idea that life – animal life – was not the only thing which could pass away” (Stoker 163). Before the events concerning Lucy occurred, this description of the tomb showcases the negative connotations attached to superstitions. The final line promotes the idea that not only is this area devoid of life but it is the perfect breeding ground for vampires. An important factor is that this description comes from their visit at night whereas the next day when they revisit the tomb, Dr. Seward’s tone changes. Dr. Seward’s notes that the tomb “was not so gruesome as last night, but oh, how unutterably mean-looking when the sunshine streamed in” (Stoker 167). Although it is still mean-looking, it is not the grim and gruesome place he recounted the night before. This further supports Gerard’s explanation that it isn’t just the location but the elements of a specific superstition connected to the place.

There is also a cultural and historical factor in superstitions that we see in Dracula as Van Helsing left “garlic and a crucifix” to “seal up the door of the tomb” (Stoker 168). Garlic is used commonly throughout this novel to ward off monsters and the crucifix is an important tool to keep evil spirits away. By putting these tools specifically at the location of the tomb, rituals and religion also become a factor in what makes the graveyard a location connected to the superstition of vampires. Gerard also gives information on vampires by explaining they “will continue to suck the blood of other innocent people till the spirit has…a stake through the corpse” and “it is further recommended to cut off the head and replace it in the coffin with mouth fulled with garlic” (334). All of these techniques are used in chapter 16 when Van Helsing and the other men kill Lucy in her vampire form. With the evidence found in Dracula and Gerard’s writing, it is apparent that locations can become associated with superstitions but only if they connect to the cultural, historical, and religious elements of said superstition.

The goal of this blog post will be to analyze the similarities and differences between the description of Dracula and lucy’s mouths. Through this the reader will gain an understanding of how female character’s a sexualized and valued in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

The reader is presented with several descriptions of Count Dracula’s mouth, and face. One of which comes in Chapter 21 while Renfield is describing his attack to Dr. Seward, “He was laughing with his red mouth; the sharp white teeth glinted in the moonlight when he turned back over the belt of trees, to where the dogs were barking.” (297). In these lines Stoker provides no specific of Dracula’s lips. He instead gives a broad description of healthy lips, and then goes into the aspects of the Count’s mouth which make him uncanny: the long white fangs. Rather than focus on the human aspects of Dracula, Stoker chooses instead to emphasize the features which make Dracula see odd and different to the rest of the characters in the novel.

Stoker’s descriptions of Lucy are full of sexual language regarding her mouth. On page 228 the author provides the following description:

“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.” (228).

In both cases Stoker puts heavy emphasis on the uncanny aspects of their mouths. He quickly mentions the long fangs and the lips that look almost too red in Dracula’s case, or the bloodstains in Lucy’s.  The major difference between the illustrations is the use of the word “voluptuous” which is inherently sexual in nature. Only the descriptions of Lucy contain this sexualized language. This, in turn, changes the emphasis of the physical depiction of Lucy from one which focuses solely on the uncanny to one which is sexually charged. This is further supported by Stoker’s use of the words “carnal” and “unspiritual.” The author emphasizes Lucy’s loss of purity, or virginity in her transition into vampirism and the uncanny. This creates an interesting disparity between Lucy and Dracula, the two named vampires in the novel thus far. Stoker and his character’s lament the loss of Lucy’s “sweet purity” whereas Dracula is simply evil incarnate. His description has nothing to do with his sexuality.

These depictions of Dracula and Lucy are given from the male perspective. Lucy’s by Dr. Seward, and Dracula’s by Renfield. Time and time again Mina and Lucy’s value as people, and to the men in the novel, is based upon their purity. Through this the reader gains insight into another aspect of what makes Dracula so terrifying: he robs his victims of what society deems the most valuable part of their identity. That is not to say that Mina and Lucy are only valued because of their purity, but rather this is a critical part of their identity. The implication is that Dracula, in turning them into vampires, is stealing for them their claims to being considered proper women.