Author: theladydothprotest

John Keats’ poem La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad describes a pallid knight wandering around a lake. As the knight describes La Belle Dame, he explains to the reader what the poem is implicitly saying; an enchanting woman stole a knight’s heart, but did not stay with him.

The knight describes the beautiful woman that enchants him as, “fully beautiful- a faerie’s child.” This line tells the reader that she may have the mischievous nature of a fairy, and most definitely the alluring beauty of one. Like fairies, sirens enchant men, and there is a possible connection to sirens in this line. In the next lines, the knight describes her long hair, and wild eyes. In the poem, her long, loose hair symbolizes her passionate behavior towards men, and specifically this knight.

In the lines preceding this, the knight sees, “on thy cheek a fading rose / fast withereth too.” He sees this rose on her, and it represents La Belle’s secret and taboo message for the knight. When he says that it withers quickly, the poem foreshadows her intent to leave him after she has had her way with him.

In the fifth stanza, the knight presents handmade gifts to La Belle Dame, who not only accepts the gifts, but returns the sentiment with a look of love. The following line is, “and made sweet moan.” This line indicates sexual interaction between them, and is the moment they become lovers.

For the next four stanzas, the knight sees nothing but La Belle, who tells him, “I love thee true.” Though she tells him she loves him, this is not an indication that she’ll stay faithful to him, or with him at all. She does none, and he awakes on a hillside, alone. Thus, the poem sends the message that this woman, (if not all women), are untrustworthy despite their displays of affection.

 

The Victorian vampire, and specifically Dracula, is a frightening creature. He is completely mysterious, as well as corrupt with evil. He feeds on living people, even children, sentencing them to untimely deaths for his benefit. Only some minute presence of God can deter him. In Bram Stoker’s novel, Dracula represents all manifestations of the devil. As the devil would, Dracula coerces young women into performing ungodly acts; he turns them into one of his own through mysterious forces, or meets them face-to-face and attempts to pervert them. Sexuality plays a strong role in the novel in that way; Dracula’s ability to change good-natured women is a large part of what gives him his evil nature.

In his article, Dracula: Vampires, Perversity, and Victorian Anxieties, Greg Buzwell describes the vampire as, “a strangely alluring representation of nocturnal glamour, and potent sexuality.” As explained in the article, Dracula imposes not only a physical threat of the women in the novel, but also poses a predatory threat on any land he chooses. As Dracula turns his victims, he lets loose a sort of virus, or foreign threat of any kind.

In addition, Buzwell says in his article that, “During the course of the book Dracula attacks both Mina and Lucy; but Mina, due to the traditional Victorian qualities of determination and loyalty towards her husband is able to resist his advances. The rather more free-spirited Lucy is not so lucky.” Here, he describes that Dracula’s evil advances are a metaphor for the realistic temptation that the women face in the book, not unlike the temptation that the devil would ensue. But that because Mina maintains her good values, she does not end up like Lucy. Here, the reader can see that Dracula imposes a metaphor for the morals a Victorian woman should follow, or succumb to, at her own risk.

 

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, sanity versus insanity is a prominently discussed topic among the characters in the book. The constant use of ‘insanity’ in the text shields and misleads the characters from the monstrous world that exists. The characters that speak of the unnatural and behave in odd ways are declared insane or simply unwell in some capacity, but are not often to be believed. The theme of insanity in the text serves to keep the characters from believing in the unnatural.

Although insanity itself was a taboo and alarming topic by itself, to the characters in this book, it is far more comfortable of a thought than that of the supernatural. When Johnathan speaks to Dr. Seward about the Count, and says, “the Master is at hand,” (p. 111) Dr. Seward attributes this and his other abnormalities to “religious mania.” (p. 111) Dr. Seward does not see any other reason than some sort of insanity for Johnathan’s behaviors. Again, when Dr. Seward read’s Lucy’s account of the night her mother died, Dr. Seward says, “in God’s name, what does it all mean? Was she, or is she, mad; or what sort of horrible danger is it? I was so bewildered that did not know what to say more.” (p. 161) Dr. Seward again goes quickly to the thought that Lucy may have been “mad.” Because what he’s read is so hard for him to understand, he can only think that she might have had some insanity, or that if not, there is some great danger. Here, Dr. Seward begins to think that there may be another possibility.

Finally, after Lucy’s “death,” Dr. Van Helsing explains to Dr. Seward the reason that he did not say directly what wait ailing Lucy. Dr. Seward is surprised at this, as he begins to understand more about what danger might be happening around him. Dr. Van Helsing says, “Mad? Would I were! Madness were easy to bear compared with truth like this….why take so long to tell you so simple a thing? My friend, it was because I wished to be gentle in the breaking to you, for I know you have loved that so sweet lady. But even yet, I do not expect you to believe. It is so hard to accept at once any abstract truth…when we have always believed the ‘no’ of it.” (p. 207) In this quote, Dr. Van Helsing explains to Dr. Seward that because the truth is shocking, confusing, and heartbreaking, that Dr. Van Helsing kept it from him. The doctor knows and explains that the truth is hard to believe for many reasons. The truth is so hard for Dr. Seward to believe, especially under these circumstances, that he continues to think, “surely there must be some rational explanation for all these things.” (p. 217) However, in these passages, we see Dr. Seward’s slowly growing inclination to believe the truth.

In this book, we immediately find an acquaintance in the narrator. The reader knows by inference and dialogue (though he does not directly introduce himself) that the narrator is Dr. Watson. Holmes talks directly to Dr. Watson, the narrator, and Dr. Watson responds, and frequently refers to himself as well as his actions. This is the first difference between The Hound of the Baskervilles and Lady Audley’s Secret. In this book, we as readers have a more direct relationship with Dr. Watson as a narrator.

Secondly, this book differs from Lady Audley’s Secret in its descriptions in general. In Lady Audley’s Secret, the descriptions of even simple objects (such as letters) are long, drawn out, and elaborate. Descriptions in The Hound of the Baskervilles are detailed and intriguing, however, they are not as whimsical, or tied to moments of emotion in the text. In Lady Audley’s Secret, the more important and emotionally-tied an object or a person was, the longer and more elaborate the description. (Such as many descriptions of Lady Audley, for instance).

These two superficial differences are the first noticeable when beginning to read.

 

“Better, perhaps that I should be out of the house – better, perhaps, that I should never have entered it…Oh, pray, do not be alarmed, Lady Audley,” he said gravely. “You have no sentimental nonsense, no silly infatuation, borrowed from Balzac, or Dumas fils, to fear from me.” Excerpt, Braddon p. 142

In this passage, Robert Audley has begun to interrogate Lady Audley. Leading up to this, Lady Audley had been talking with Robert about how “unfortunate” she thought it was that Robert had to be kicked out of their house. The reason she gives for Robert Audley being forced to leave is that her husband, Michael Audley, was concerned with it being “dangerous” for a man to be smoking so much around his wife. She tells Robert than he is owed an apology, because of her husband’s “silly thinking.” To the reader, this is clearly a lie, as we have heart the real reason Robert was turned away, and that Lady Audley clearly felt that no apology was needed. And although Lady Audley lied to Robert, she did it with her usual, “peculiar childish vivacity, which seemed so natural to her.” In this excerpt, Robert Audley shows the small amount of knowledge he has that she has malevolent intentions. By saying that it might have been better if he had never come into the house, Robert begins to bring up the idea that there is something dangerous about being inside it. After he says this, Lady Audley looks “with an earnest, questioning gaze,” that Robert fully understands. Although she looks up at him seemingly in earnest, what Robert understands is that this is all for show. He tells her not to be alarmed, as she shouldn’t expect any “nonsense,” or “silly infatuation” from him. He tells her that he will not have to borrow womanly tactics from the writing of Dumas, and the “fils” in them. This is Robert telling Lady Audley that he will not be pretending to be ignorant, or that he will not the true meanings of his words with anything “borrowed.” This passage shows the reader that Lady Audley is constantly retaining her façade around everyone, but that Robert Audley is challenging it.