Throughout the novel Dracula, Bram Stroker plays upon the superstitions of the people during this time. During the Victorian era, modernity was coming into the forefront of society with the industrial revolution and the invention of new technology. At the basis of modernity lays this belief of positivism: the belief that science is at the basis of all things (art, literature, etc.) From the beginning of the Renaissance period, humans started rationalizing all things in life, as if they wanted to prove that there is an explanation for everything in the world.
In this novel, it is the character of Van Helsing who questions this belief. He says: “Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? […] Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain” (204). In this passage Helsing explain that there are things in life that do not have an explanation, and that force one to look elsewhere for the answers. The doctor is, of course, referring to the idea of Lucy being bitten by a vampire, but there is more to this passage than just a direct connection the novel.
In my opinion, we can make the claim that Dracula is a novel that casts doubt on the fixed theories and scientific beliefs of this time. Thus, it is not the blood-sucking vampires that causes the fear, but it is indeed the fear of doubt the readers experience that makes this a truly horrific novel.
I agree with the author. A big theme in the novel is ‘what we can not see may be true’, whether that is literally, with Dracula’s reflection, or metaphorically (Dracula’s existence in general). I think the the quote that GIULIAPAGANO raised also critics the civilized vs the uncivilized. To be superstitious and not to put stock in science is seen as uncivilized, but to be uncivilized or a foreigner you may see what others cannot.
This post illustrates a regression of what had been seen in other novels, most notably, Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles. While The Hound of the Baskervilles began with a seemingly supernatural antagonist which ended up having a reasonable scientific explanation, Dracula has no logical reasoning for the existence of vampires. Rather, it places all blame on the supernatural, as Dracula and other vampires are the living dead, who need religious sanctity in order to be stopped from turning others. Clearly, Dracula represents an inversion of the logic of the other novels we have read.
This post illustrates a regression of what had been seen in other novels, most notably, Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles. While The Hound of the Baskervilles began with a seemingly supernatural antagonist which ended up having a reasonable scientific explanation, Dracula has no logical reasoning for the existence of vampires. Rather, it places all blame on the supernatural, as Dracula and other vampires are the living dead, who need religious sanctity in order to be stopped from turning others. Clearly, Dracula represents an inversion of the logic of the other novels we have read.
I completely agree with the claim about the novel made in this post. The novel certainly uses superstition and its relationship with science to make the novel more frightening and horrific for the readers of the era in which it was published. With new scientific discoveries and technologies, people at the time slowly stopped believing in the supernatural. Yet, here we see that science cannot explain what is going on in the novel. What also is interesting about this, is it seems like the only tools to fight against vampires and what is happening in the novel, are things that are also generality regarded as either superstitious of religious. It’s interesting that for a British novel which contains so much xenophobia and seems to push a fear of foreigners, the only thing that can really protect against vampires are things from another, and perhaps often thought of as not as evolved form of Christianity, Catholicism. Science cannot explain and new technologies cannot really protect, making the only option to use religion and superstition to fight back. It is also interesting that because of this reliance on science, the British characters in the novel are not as equipped or knowledgeable in the novel, unlike the native Transylvanians and Van Helsing.
Great post. I completely agree with you. For the most part, Dracula really does seem be a novel about “the fear of the unknown.” As a result of this uncertainty, the minds of readers were stimulated, awakening emotions and anxieties that lie within. For instance, in relation to the time that the novel was written, members of Victorian society were unfamiliar with a lot of the supernatural “entities,” such as vampires, werewolves, and so forth. The fact that readers were so unsure about what may be causing all of these horrific “murders,” was, perhaps, the most terrifying thing. No one likes to possess doubt.
As some of the previous repliers stated, this post connects well with our last reading, The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Rather than Mortimer, who was convinced that the Baskerville murders were caused by a “fire-breathing hound,” Holmes stuck to practical answers, escaping from the realm of superstition and unexplainable phenomena. Of course, in Dracula, the supernatural also exists – but it is acknowledged.