Category: 2016 Blog Post

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, sexuality plays a key role in both the horror genre and the readers fascination. In the line, “There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear”, deadly fear and lust or longing are present at the same time. This combination of emotion itself is scandalous and may explain the intrigue of vampire in modern and Victorian times. The ways in which pain and lust are is also show to be simultaneous is when the bite is referenced as a kiss. Jonathan says “I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that they would kiss me with those red lips.” It is a compelling idea that what he desires may be what ends him. Jonathan waiting for this kiss is also described as “in an agony of delightful anticipation”. There is a clear binary here of lust (anticipation, longing, desire) and fear or pain (agony, fear, wicked).

There is heavy seductive body language like “on her knees”, “bent over me”, “arched her neck”, “licked her lips”, and “red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth”. The vampire body and ways are made to be alluring, as to lure people to their death. These phrase emphasize the sexuality of the woman in a way that could be read as not only scandalous in Victorian times, but also scandalous now, due the fact the sex can be deadly. The art of seduction is also the art of killing.

 

 

In this blog post, I will discuss and elaborate upon a vampire myth that was not discussed in class: the idea that vampires can become a ghastly fog in order to hunt their prey. In the Bram Stoker novel, Dracula, one of the protagonists, Johnathan Harker noticed “quaint little specks floating in the rays of the moonlight [that] gathered in clusters in a nebulous sort of way”(52). In addition to this, the particulate matter in the air seemingly became “three ghostly women… [who had]  materialized from the moonbeams”(53).  In response, Johnathan “fled [to his room where he] felt somewhat safer… where there was no moonlight”(52). These individuals that Harker witnessed were the three vampiric women that nearly consumed him during the end of chapter 3. These women, through their ghostly forms, are able to skulk throughout Dracula’s castle until it is time to appear. The idea that vampires can assume this form is solidified when the log of the ship, Demeter, is reviewed. Over the course of a month, sailors disappeared because something  was killing them. In addition to this, they were unable to navigate the sea due to a fog which “seemed to move with” the ship (94). One sailor reported that he saw “a man, tall… thin… [and]  ghostly pale”(94). When this sailor stabbed the entity, “the knife went through it, empty as the air”(94). This individual’s physical description matches Count Dracula, who we know is a vampire through popular culture and his actions in the novel. In addition to this, the fact that a sailor attempted stab Dracula, but is unable to, demonstrates the intangible properties of a vampire in this form. The idea that a vampire can transform into fog demonstrates their potential predatory tendencies, as they are able to hunt and ambush their human prey.

Beyond being the primary work in vampire mythology, Bram Stoker’s Dracula serves as a more nuanced text on Christian beliefs and piety. This should be hardly surprising as Stoker is a product of his culture, and Christian piety, as well as anxiety, is a center pillar of Victorian culture. What makes Stoker remarkable is his apology to Catholicism. Stoker was a Protestant Irishman living through the initial debate of Irish Home Rule and was himself a supporter. In this light, Stoker’s inclusion of Catholic symbols in Dracula and their literal importance in the salvation of Jonathan Harker is an olive branch extended between two Christian communities often found at political odds with each other.

Going right to the text, Harker encounters peasants along his way to Castle Dracula. They try to give him devotional objects, clearly knowing something Harker doesn’t, to ward off evil. Harker is dismissive of them, “I therefore tried to raise her up, and said, as gravely as I could, that I thanked her, but my duty was imperative” (Stoker, 11). Furthermore, “as an English Churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as… idolatrous” (Stoker, 11). Harker, through Stoker’s narrative, has revealed his prejudices against the non-reformed church and their associated impetus on public ritual. Theologically, Harker is representative of English Protestants, yet these objects hold the key to his survival.

In a later chapter, Harker is subject to Count Dracula’s impulsive rage upon accidentally cutting himself with a razor. Dracula lunges at him but it parried by the rosary the peasant give him (Stoker, 33). Following this episode, Harker reflects on the comfort the rosary has given him, “it is odd that a thing I have been taught to regard with disfavor and idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of such help” (Stoker, 35). As his fortune has changed towards the perilous, Harker has found a new appreciation for the “idolatrous” symbols of the non-reformed church.

In relation to the wider world, this text is important as a Protestant apology of Catholicism. In a modern world with greater evils, Stoker expresses a need to overcome sectarian divides in the Christianity. Dracula, a greater evil of anti-Christian origin, is held at bay by a Protestant wielding Catholic devotional objects and finding new strength in them. In a text about reverse-colonization, sectarian divides diminish as a new challenge from the East presents itself. In relation to Stoker personally, these passages can be expounded as conveying a hope that Protestants and Catholics could reconcile differences in Home-Rule Ireland.

“There he sat, with his tweed suit and his American accent, in the corner of a prosaic railway-carriage, and yet as I looked at his dark and expressive face I felt more than ever how true a descendant he was of that long line of high-blooded, fiery, and masterful men.” (55)

The character of Sir Henry is a puzzling one. We, as readers, do not receive a lot of information about him except for the fact that he has lived in Canada, and has come back to England because he is the closest heir to Sir Charles. I chose this quote because it depicts an almost contradictory image of Sir Henry’s identity: An American-looking Baskerville. In Watson’s eyes, the contrast is quite clear. I find it interesting how his clothes portray him as a cheery American, but his facial features tell another story. Watson describes his face as “dark” and “expressive”, as if these features indicate an obvious tie to the Baskerville lineage.

Not only do we learn about Sir Henry, but we also get a clearer sense of how the Baskerville men are perceived. The first descriptor is “high-blooded”, which means that they are of noble lineage, and therefore powerful and rich. These men are also “fiery” and “masterful”, which could mean that they might be seen as having a quick temper, and perhaps unpredictable.

What could this mean for Sir Henry? Why does Watson now realize that he is this way? Could this be a possible foreshadowing of how the character might  transform throughout the story?

“Now is the dramatic moment of fate, Watson, when you hear a step upon the stair which is walking into your life, and you know not whether for good or ill. What does Dr. James Mortimer, the man of science, ask of Sherlock Holmes, the specialist in crime? Come in!” (pg 7)

This passage hints at the relationship between science and crime which are incredibly strong themes throughout the book and throughout many other novels written around the same time because of the industrial revolution and the ripple effect that technology and new ideas seemed to cause. In Wednesday’s class we discussed the standardisation of education and the rise in literacy rates which sparked interest in people to gain knowledge and information in all things new and exciting which, at the time, revolved massively around science and medicine. In 1901 when the book was set, a year prior to it being written, Queen Victoria died at the ripe old age of 81, which caused a massive negative reaction in the public as it was common folklore and believed by the English of that period, that if Queen Victoria died before the age of 101, God would be angered and as punishment, the common people of England would suffer. God wasn’t angered and therefore no Englishmen were punished, however, because of the amount of belief people had in this folklore, many turned to and were influenced by recent scientific discoveries and scientific explanations instead of immediately turning to God.

Referring back to the passage when Holmes says, ‘Now is the dramatic moment of fate, Watson, when you hear a step upon the stair which is walking into your life, and you know not whether for good or ill.’, I feel as though Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was using his character of Sherlock Holmes to ask the questions he would be asking. Specifically questions regarding modern technology, were they to be trusted? Were they safe? Were they reliable? What were their purpose? Especially in 1901, when God and religion as sturdy pillars in society were being doubted and criticised, people wanted something to believe in and someone to answer their questions. Without any other way to release his opinions into the public, Doyle might have, in a sense, used his characters as a communication device between himself and his readers.

 

 

 

 

 

Arthur Conan Doyle created a very unique character when he invented Sherlock Holmes. He has a remarkably high intelligence level, which makes him bored of everyday life. This leads him to be addicted to drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, and how he has very few friends other than Dr. Watson. However, it is because of this high intelligence level that he is a great detective – one of the best ever created.

What makes Sherlock Holmes so great are his observation skills. They are so remarkable that he can deduce a man’s life story with only the smallest details to go off. He uses these details to help solve many of the mysteries he is presented with, often times by talking through them with Dr. Watson. Sherlock even tells Watson, “The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.” (28)

In this one sentence, Sherlock’s whole personality is given. He is seen as a man of wisdom, as what he says is very true. However, he uses the word “nobody”, which separates him from the rest of the world. This one word shows that he thinks of himself better than anyone else and that he is alone in being smart enough to figure out the most “obvious things”.

The word “things” is also an interesting word. He did not say details, which would imply his acute observation skills, but by saying “things” he shows that he believes himself to be superior in many different areas. Another interesting phrase that he says is “by any chance”. This shows that there is not any question to him that there is anybody out in the world that is smarter or better than him.

This sentence is about how Sherlock knows that he is better than anybody else. It also shows that he is very disappointed in the world that such “obvious things” are never notices other than himself. I think this sentence also explains why Sherlock is bored with society and turns to drugs for relief. However, this sentence also makes me question if it is foreshadowing Sherlock meeting someone who is just as smart, if not smarter, than himself later in the novel.

Two passages that struck me were:

1. “The light beat upon him where he stood, but long shadows trailed down the walls and hung like a black canopy above him (Chapter 6 pg 110).
2. “I guess it is ourselves and not the house that we have to blame!” said the baronet (Chapter 7 pg 115).

The first passage occurs when Sir Henry is seeing his new estate for the first time. He stared at the walls admirably but darkness hung over him. I interpreted this as the curse of his family was hanging over him. Almost as if he was doomed because his ancestors were doomed. The word “long” indicates many eras of tragedy in his family. The image I get is the headshots of the past heirs being covered with darkness to indict their ill fates. The simile saying the shadow “hung like a black canopy above him,” indicates that he hasn’t been succumbing to darkness yet, but it’s coming! It feels like the darkness is waiting above Sir Henry waiting for the right moment for the Hound of Baskerville to pounce. After reading the second passage, I changed my opinion. Sir Henry makes the claim that the problem is with him and not the house. This is important because maybe the “curse” that is haunting his family isn’t actually a curse at all. It seems to me that it might be the Baskerville men causing their own fate. Their own actions are causing them to die. I see the self-fulfilling prophecy in this novel. The family thinks they are cursed, so they unconsciously make bad things happen to themselves. Holmes doesn’t usually believe in supernatural events and it is noted that he is rarely wrong. Therefore I think Sir Henry’s statement above is foreshadowing that the Baskerville Curse does not exist. The servants said the Sir Charles was so stressed and focused on the fear of dying that his weak heart could have caused his death. If I were a detective on the case, I would be inclined to argue that Sir Charles had a heart attack and died because he was afraid of the darkness.

Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant detective because of his attention to detail that others easily over look.  However, why does Holmes need Watson’s assistance in order to help him solve mysteries he easily can solve on his own? What is it about Watson that makes him so important to Holmes? For example, when Watson attempts to assist Holmes in identifying the mysterious walking stick, Holmes simply responds to Watson hypothesis that “I am afraid, my dear Watson, that most of your conclusions were erroneous. When I said you stimulated me I meant, to be frank, that in noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth” (2). Why did Holmes even bother asking for Watson’s opinion if he already knew the answer? Holmes is blunt and frank with poor Watson, yet at the same time realizes his is obnoxious behavior towards him. For example, instead of allowing Watson to grab a cab, that would allow them to quickly take them to the hotel Holmes stops him, insisting that he rather walk because “I am perfectly satisfied with your company if you will tolerate mine” (26). The relationship between these two strikes me to be quite fascinating, especially because later in the novel after learning about the curse of the hound and Sir Charles death, rather than Holmes attending Sir Henry and Dr. Mortimer to Baskerville Hall, he sends naïve Watson. What I found even more striking was that Watson first thought upon learning this information was that “the promise of adventure had always a fascination for me, and I was complimented by the words of Holmes and by the eagerness with which the baronet hailed me as a companion” (34). This left me wondering if Watson is truly fascinated with adventure, or if there is another reason why he is compelled to go on a journey that may end up costing him his life?

“‘The story took a great hold upon the imagination of Sir Charles, and I have no doubt that it led to his tragic end…. His nerves were so worked up that the appearance of any dog might have had a fatal effect on his diseased heart.'” – pg. 65

In this passage, Stapleton tells Watson his thoughts surrounding Sir Charles’s tragic death. I think the way Stapleton words this sentiment is very interesting because it implies that the hold that the legend of the Hound of Baskervilles had over Charles’s imagination is what caused his death and not the presence of an actual hound. In the description of Charles’s death and the footprint of the hound, it is clear that the hound, if it truly exists, never touched Sir Charles on the night he died. Charles seems to have died from fear. Why would this vicious, murderous hound get so close, only to leave his body untouched? If this is the case, what or who should Sir Charles have actually been afraid of?

Throughout the story there have been multiple mentions of the supernatural and prehistoric men, as if to make readers consider ritual sacrifice of the ancient Baskervilles as the cause of their recurring deaths. There is also the questioning of the hound’s cry as if to say nobody knows what the sound is, but assume it to be the hound. I have noticed, though, that there are also too many suspicious people involved for anything to just be caused by the supernatural. Miss Stapleton seems to know something and delivered a message to Watson strangely similar to that in the newspaper. There was the strange disappearing man on the moor and the escaped convict, as well as Stapleton and the Barrymores, both of whom have good reasons for their strange behavior, as long as we believe their explanations to be true. At the very least somebody seems to know something about the Hound of the Baskervilles or the death of Sir Charles, but is reluctant to tell Henry anything other than that he should leave the moor. Between all this and the fact that Sherlock Holmes is a man of logic and reason, I am left questioning whether the supernatural hound that scared Charles to death that night actually even exists, or if there is a person or natural cause to blame.