Category: 2017 Blog Post

In Bram Stoker’s tale of Dracula, the novel reveals in a dark twisted way, how Dracula manages to have full control and effect of leading humans to insanity. For example, Van Helsing tries to protect Mina Harkens by placing the Sacred Wafer to her forehead, but instead, it has the complete opposite effect leaving just a deep red scar. Mrs. Harkens convinced it was Dracula doing, she is left to feel”unclean.” The one benefit that is discovered is that Mina Harkens now has a connection with Dracula.  This is helpful because it helps Van Helsing and the rest of the men figure out where Dracula has run off to. The goal is to get rid of him for good and put the world to rest.  “Now my fear is this. If it be that she can, by our hypnotic trance, tell what the Count see and hear, is it not more true that he who have to hypnotise her first, and who have drink of her very blood and make her drink of his, should, if he will compel her mind to disclose to him that which she knows?”   Mina Harkens serves as an asset to Van Helsing and his crew, but it seems dangerous bringing her along the journey because of the power Dracula has on her.

It is interesting how the men come to the conclusion of bringing Mrs.Harkens along, after being convinced it was a bad idea. I can see the advantage of bringing her along in order to figure out where Dracula might be, yet, it is still very risky to bring her closer towards Dracula; where he will probably have more power over her.    Dracula is a powerful character who manipulates and brings people to insanity. It will be interesting to see how Van Helsing and the rest of the men will work to get rid of Dracula for good.

Ideas of sanity and insanity are both clear cut and obscure throughout Dracula. We have blatant forms of insanity – such as the clearly crazed Renfield – yet we also have other characters who exhibit more obscure signs of madness, such as Lucy and Jonathan. Lucy is put under constant surveillance, as she often sleepwalks throughout the night. Moreso, even when awake she can be found in a trance, as if enchanted by Dracula’s influence. When Lucy spots Dracula on her walk with Mina, she notes “‘his red eyes again! They are just the same’” (126). Mina reflects that Lucy went into a “half-dreamy state, with an odd look on her face” (126). Merely seeing Dracula is enough to cast Lucy into a daze. Somehow he manages to disturb the inner workings of the brain, perhaps in order to get his victims to do his biddings for him. Lucy, for example, is so entranced by Dracula that she leaves her bedroom in the freezing cold to meet him outside, where he consequently sucks her blood.

Similarly, Jonathan goes insane following his time spent with Dracula. While it may be fair to attribute his hospitalization to the disturbed, terror inducing torture he endured in Dracula’s abode, his severe reaction seems to suggest something more than that. After escaping Dracula’s castle, he is hospitalized for brain fever. It seems that Dracula inspires madness in his victims. The mere sight of him is enough to catapult an entire crew of men off of their own ship. Upon seeing Dracula, one of the last men aboard the Demeter emerges from the hold “a raging madman, with his eyes rolling and his face convulsed with fear” (113). After a few moments, “his horror turned to despair and… he sprang on the bulwark and deliberately threw himself into the sea” (113). A single interaction with Dracula is enough to send each man overboard, as each man opts for suicide over enduring the rest of the trip with Dracula. In general, it seems that Dracula’s presence sends characters into a state of self-destructive madness.

We live in an age defined by an ultra-egalitarian zeitgeist so overpowering that it has extinguished the fire or spirit which once illuminated the halls of history with understanding and meaning.

Egalitarianism, the ideology and moral ideal of equality, is the defining characteristic of what we call ‘modernity’. On a physical and metaphysical level it is the destruction of value. It is a source of apathy and is essentially nihilistic because of its destruction of value. Something has value when is different or unique. A world of difference and inequality has meaning and purpose. A world of equality, in an esoteric sense, is a world without meaning. It is a world where no one is stronger, smarter, quicker, wittier,  more beautiful or noble than anyone else. To even assert that anyone is or could be greater than anyone else is the greatest sacrilege, punished with excommunication and shaming. This is probably why marxian socialists and marxian socialist countries with aggressively egalitarian policies have recorded historically the highest rates of suicide in the world. This also might explain why life was so cheap under the soviet system, and also why in a secular state where metaphysics have been abolished and the world is seen purely in physical terms (capitalism/socialism/communism) the number one preoccupation is money. But while money can provide you with means it cannot provide you with meaning.

And this highlights the terrible contradiction in egalitarian ideology because its general appeal is not to those who are in the middle – and certainly not those with any confidence in themselves – but to those that are either significantly above or significantly below. Those who are below embrace the language of equality because they stand to gain social status and wealth. Equality policies are like winning the lottery. And those who are above preach equality because they stand to gain legitimacy and a sense of well being. Advocacy of equality makes them appear ‘Enlightened’ (woke) and ‘educated’ (informed) which makes them morally superior to those who reject advocacy of equality… all of which gives them power in the social structure as constructed today. And this highlights what lies beneath all the empty platitudes and ostensible noble intentions: Egalitarianism is about Power. This is why it creates a climate of corruption because on the one hand the language of egalitarianism is used in a cynical fashion by individuals pursuing personal or political advantage while on the other (and because of these individuals) the sincerity of self-proclaimed egalitarians becomes highly suspect. What is more showing however is that among those who have been designated as beneficiaries of egalitarian ethics it is increasingly understood now more than ever that these ethics are not sincere. This is because those who are beneficiaries ultimately comprise a class of parasites who knowingly go along with these ethics as a strategy of not only survival but deception.

And when you look around at the material world in which we live it is undeniable that inequality is not only in abundance but an inevitability. Equality of opportunity is a lie (it is important to note here that the assumption of equality of opportunity precedes equality of outcome which is therefore also a lie). It doesn’t exist and never will. How tall are you? Are you and all of your peers the same height? What is the height of your reach? You may never be able to reach higher than six feet. Why is this? Well, we are at least eighty percent genetic or hereditarian. We exist as organisms in biological substructures just like all other organisms and we are beholden to the laws of nature (unless you are a kook who believes in creationism instead of the Theory of Evolution). In this way we are biologically pre-determined. So equality of opportunity will not ever exist and is therefore a dishonest ideal to pursue because it will never be realized, and you shouldn’t believe anyone telling you equality of opportunity is real or achievable.

You might be asking yourself: Why is it important to explain the greatest falsehood and betrayal of our time? This ideology of Egalitarianism has infected everything including your psyche and moral sensibilities. You have oriented your entire life and understanding of the world around a great lie. It’s not your fault you have fallen for this lie. I don’t believe that someone who has had the truth withheld from them is in any way at fault. You are a victim of historical circumstance. You have not yet been presented with an alternative to this illusion that has been constructed around you. That is where Count Dracula comes in. Continue reading, if not for the extrication of you moral consciousness by understanding anti-egalitarianism, at least for an accurate understanding of who Dracula is.

So, who is Dracula? We know that he’s a vampire and he’s suppose to be very spooky. But more important to his identity and character is his appearance in the novel as an elite or patrician, and an unapologetic and proud one at that (a characteristic that has curiously been entirely erased from or demonized in popular culture). Dracula isn’t an elite in the meritocratic sense either – constructed to be the only acceptable type of elite by moderate egalitarians – rather he is a nobleman. “Ah, young sir, the Szekelys – and the Dracula as their heart’s blood, Their brains, and their swords – can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach.” (Page 37). As a member of the nobility – unlike the rootless, cosmopolitan elites of today – he has a connection to the land and a connection to the people who have served him and who he has protected. There is a sense of pride in who he is, integrally tied to common people. There is also a desire for greatness, glory and status not only for himself but for his people because as a nobleman his success is largely dependent on theirs -again unlike the bankers and financiers of today who benefit from misfortune as much as success.

This is really only a superficial characteristic of the aristocracy based in the material world that is rather common and understandable. What is truly revealing is the sentiment he follows this passage up with. “The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace; and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told.” (Page 37). The aristocracy and the the aristocratic soul has always been organized around ideals found in majesty, glory, strength, beauty and honor (romanticism) through organized violence. Organized violence is seen as the highest and most pure expression of the soul because of its truth value. When someone achieves their goals by way of organized violence they have done so honestly and fairly by way of competition. The yearning desire for the greatness that comes from organized violence/truth is essentially aristocratic during this time period when the aristocracy, traditionally the military class. He is the classically conflicted aristocratic figure. The aristocracy had reached its zenith and had steadily declined because of increasing egalitarian sentiments during the 19th century. Changing military technologies had rendered skill at arms, the years of martial training aristocratic men had engaged in, useless in the face of the bolt action rifle, artillery, and tanks.

Dracula as a vampire also possess’ supernatural strength and power. So he is not only an elite in the social sense but also possess’ the mythical strength and endurance of a figure typically worshiped in a pagan hero cult. He is in a physical sense superior to those around him. Of course this superiority comes at the cost of being a vampire and all of the negative side effects that go along with vampirism. Dracula in this way is a tragic figure. He possess’ the high qualities of a hero but at the expense of insatiable desire that reduces him to a thrall.

Defining Insanity

Bram Stoker’s Dracula presents a cunning relationship between man and beast. The novel seems to be about the supernatural, but is also about the monster inside of humans. The novel contains multiple instances of humans demonstrating animalistic actions and having animalistic qualities. While looking at the relationship of man and beast through a lens of insanity, Dracula poses a question on the Victorian notion that one can identify insanity in a human based off physical features such as one’s face and body. When a human displays physical and psychological animalistic qualities, the character is immediately assumed to be insane opposed to a belief that the supposed lunatic is simply demonstrating primal animalistic tendencies.
Jonathan Harker describes Count Dracula using animalistic language to describe his appearance, clothing, and movement. For example, when Harker witnesses the Count climbing down the castle’s wall, he describes Dracula as a “lizard” as well as some creature “with great wings,” like a bat or a bird (Stoker 41). Harker observes the animal-like features then questions “what manner of man is this, or what manner of creature is it in the semblance of man?” (Stoker 41). Harker questions whether Dracula is a monstrous beast that looks like a man or if he is simply insane. In response to Dracula’s bizarre actions, Harker believes that Dracula is either crazy or an animal. In either instance, Harker uses non-human characteristic to describe Dracula in an attempt to dehumanize and disassociate Dracula with conventions accepted in daily society.
Additionally, Dr. Seward’s patient Renfield presents an interesting counterargument to Dracula’s monstrous appearance and actions. The notion that Seward looks at Renfield’s face and “see(s) a warning of danger” of a “sidelong look which meant killing” demonstrates Seward’s belief in physiognomy, the ability to assess character or personality from a person’s outer appearance. According to Seward’s notes, Renfield is a “zoophagous [life-eating] maniac” (Stoker 79). Similar to Dracula consuming human blood, Renfield consumes live organisms. Humans are mammals. Carnivorous mammals instinctively kill and eat animals lower on the food chain. Renfield, a mammal, feeds animals to a predator higher on the food chain and eats the highest predator. Here lies an example of how animalistic actions in humans render insanity in Dracula even though humans are technically animals.
If animalistic nature innately lies inside humans and demonstrating animalistic nature means a person is insane, then Seward’s claim that “all men are mad” is true (Stoker 129). Human beings can look normal but actually be a monster or insane. If a monster can have humanistic qualities to make everyone think he is human then inversely, a human can have monstrous qualities to make everyone think he is a monster.

The passage I chose establishes a link between the monster and human aspects of mortality with both the vampires and humans perspective being on opposite ends of the spectrum. From sexuality to social norms the length that we know both will go to or have tried to go to in order to obtain their desire and who they will risk differing greatly from not just each other, but from what was acceptable in this time period. I see the Stroker as trying to embrace woman as being able to be the monster just as men were, while also keeping their innocence which is found on the other end of the spectrum.

The vampire sisters seduce Harker and then make an effort to drain his blood while keeping him in a vulnerable situation. “I was afraid to raise my eyelids, but looked out and saw perfectly under the lashes. The girl went on her knees, and bent over me, simply gloating. There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck, she actually licked her lips like an animal. . . . Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range of my mouth and chin and seemed about to fasten on my throat. . . . I closed my eyes in a languorous ecstasy and waited—waited with beating heart.” (Stoker). The quote can also be seen as a comparison between Mina and Lucy, pure women who are ideal models of the Victorian woman who one would assume wouldn’t be capable or even think of doing such an act to another human. Comparing this to the three sisters who are complete opposites. Woman of the devil who wants nothing more than to ravage and harm a man’s body. The overall control the vampires had on Harker had him in a vulnerable position that would not have been accepting of this time period, the females could be seen as dangerous regardless if they were vampires.

Although Bram Stoker’s Dracula has an overtone that speaks to fears of the supernatural, it also contains an undertone that speaks to the Victorian fear of the foreign and channels these fears into the portrayal of foreign women. In Jonathan Harker’s narration of his time in Transylvania, he makes sure to make it apparent how odd everything was in this land. Besides the offhand remarks referring to Slovak people as “barbaric” (Stoker 9), the depiction of foreign women struck me as particularly interesting. When Harker was visited by the three women in Dracula’s castle, the women’s “dark” skin and “high aquiline noses” (Stoker 44) added to their dangerously sensual spell over Harker. He says how their exotic spell over him compromised him morally, and that, “There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear.”(Stoker 45) While their features are similar to those of Count Dracula, rather than making them monstrously fearful, the women’s exotic features make them dangerous in a sexual way. This fetishization of women is also seen in  Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which depicts the treacherous journey of an Englishman and his crew through the Congo River in Africa. Once again, the depiction of the foreign lands and its people are shown as odd and barbaric in the eyes of a Victorian-era man. The women are the exclusion of this barbaric depiction with a fetishized one in exchange.  In this story, the portrayal of a black woman with her exotic beauty and sensuality serves as a source of danger for the Victorian man. In both, women are used to demonstrate the primal nature that these foreign lands and people incite in otherwise honorable British men. The irony of these fears lies in the cruel colonization on the British front to said foreigners. Perhaps these fear steamed from the realizations of how harshly the British treated those they colonized, leading the Victorians to be fearful of the same sort of “colonization” of their lands and culture.

 

            At first glance, it doesn’t seem likely to have a lot in common with a vampire; however, Dracula by Bram Stoker has created a parallel between Lucy, a human, and Count Dracula, a vampire.

            Firstly, the number three is connected to both characters, which creates a parallel. Lucy has three suitors anxious to marry her. She asks Mina in a letter, “why can’t they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble?” (Stoker, 67) in response to the three proposals she received in one day. Similarly, as revealed in Johnathon Harker’s journal Dracula has “three young women, ladies by their dress and manner” (Stoker, 44).

            Additionally, both Lucy and Dracula rely on blood to survive. Dracula depends on drinking blood, which leads him to Lucy as his next victim. As a result, Lucy then must receive the “transfusion of blood at once” (Stoker, 131) in order to survive. This idea that “the blood is the life! The blood is the life!” (Stoker, 152) is repeated by Renfield, Dr. Seward’s patient, later on in the text.

            Ultimately, these parallels prompt a deeper meaning in the novel. Considering the parallels are drawn between a human and a vampire, perhaps it shows that anyone is capable of being a monster. As mentioned before, the women connected to Dracula appear as beautiful ladies. Johnathon “somehow [knew] her face” yet, “there was something about them that made me uneasy” (Stoker, 44-45). These women have no problem passing as human beings. Despite the fact that “all three had brilliant white teeth” (Stoker, 45) they otherwise had ordinary outward appearances.

            Likewise, Lucy can arguable been seen as a monster, but in a different way. Lucy received “three proposals in one day!” (Stoker, 64). Yet, she can only marry one of her three suitors. Therefore, she becomes a monster in the sense that she must break the hearts of two well-deserving men. Lucy even admits to her immoral behavior stating, “here was I almost making fun of this great-hearted, true gentleman” (Stoker, 67). While Lucy’s actions aren’t as life-threatening as Dracula and his fellow vampires, her refusal still causes “a man like that [to] be made unhappy” (Stoker, 68) because of her decision.

            In the end, what I’m really try to say here is that these parallels reveal that the supernatural is not so far removed from humanity.

If several people witness a car accident–or anything really–they will all come away with slightly different accounts, with stories that are the truth as that person sees it.

 

The story of Dracula is told in so many different voices and modes that it comes across like the aftermath of a tragedy, like a compilation of evidence. There is something forensic about the storytelling, as if the writer is trying to construct a story from what was left behind after this series of climactic events.

This approach allows exposition to enter the story even though each specific single character could not learn the whole story.

 

The vast number of narrators telling the story distances the reader. The first part, when Jonathan alone is narrating, is more traditional–a first person narrative told in the diary style. After that, there are many limited-perspective narrators whose stories, taken all together, combine to tell a full story. However, the reader can never get attached to one character because the story jumps around. Interestingly, like in Lady Audley’s Secret, the only character we don’t really get to see into the mind of is the villain, which keeps that villain mysterious and foreboding.

 

The main voices belong to Jonathan and Mina Harker, Lucy Westenra, and Dr. John Seward, with many additions by other characters, some of which remain nameless, such as the authors of newspaper articles. Although the voices of each narrator are not very different, there are noticeable variations. This story is told via clippings from different types of media. Dr. Seward keeps a phonograph diary. Mina and Lucy’s perspectives are told through a combination of their diaries and letters, while Jonathan keeps only a diary. There are other unique narrators: letters between more minor characters, such as Arthur and Quincey, and newspaper clippings, for example.

 

This is not to say that the story is told dispassionately. Collections of evidence will include facts, yes, but they also include very emotional accounts. Jonathan, in the initial chapters, talks about his emotions a lot. In later chapters, Seward (a doctor) takes somewhat of a logical approach (as with his patient Renfield), but he reacts utterly irrationally when faced with the prospect of decapitating Lucy. Van Helsing is the most logic-based narrator, despite being viewed by John Seward as crazy. Seward, it must be pointed out,  seems logical but really is driven by his emotions in most situations–which we see when he breaks the Hippocratic oath by sharing information about Lucy with Quincey . “As he spoke the poor fellow looked terribly anxious.He was in a torture of suspense regarding the woman he loved, and his utter ignorance of the terribly mystery that seemed to surround her which intensified his pain. His very heart was bleeding, and it took all the man-hood of him — and there was a royal lot of it, too — to keep him from breaking down. I paused before answering, for I felt that I must not betray anything which the Professor wished kept secret; but already he knew so much, and guessed so much, that there could be no reason for not answering, so I answered in the same phrase: ‘That’s so’” (162-3). Van Helsing seems to be the one character who can think with his head and nothing else. This may even be why Seward views him as insane: in a world where evil is made flesh, logic seems madness.

The fragmenting of the story into a variety of narrators also illustrates Dracula’s spreading influence. While in his castle, only one narrator was needed. Once he is in England, the evil spreads, and there is a resulting cacophony of voices.

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, themes such as colonial domination, and classism are omnipresent in the attitude of the novel’s titular character, Count Dracula.  As a nobleman in Transylvania, Dracula prides himself on his family’s history and the effect that it has had on the country as a whole as, “ In his speaking of things and people, and especially of battles, he spoke as if he had been present at them all. . . [the] pride of his house and name is his own pride, that their glory is his glory, that their fate is his fate (Stoker, 35).”  By presenting his family and himself as being integral to the national fate of Romania, Dracula is attempting to prove to Harker (an Englishman) that he is deserving of his noble blood and, therefore, respect.  

Dracula wants to immigrate from an impoverished, uninfluential nation (Romania) to the world’s most powerful country (England).  This shows that even though Dracula is powerful among his own people, he is unsatisfied with it, as seen when Dracula tells about his fellow country men. He says that the “peasant is at heart a coward and a fool!” (Stoker, 32).  To be able to subjugate the people of the world’s most powerful country would finally prove that Dracula is deserving of his ancestor’s bloodline (as a Boyar, he explains that he is descended from Attila the Hun which may help explain his desire to conquer other lands/peoples, another reason for him to leave Romania for England).

Dracula also feels superior to commoners which shows his classist tendencies.  For example, when Harker is explaining to Dracula that the estate in England is secluded and that there is an old chapel nearby, Dracula comments, “We Transylvanian nobles love not to think that our bones may lie amongst the common dead (Stoker, 30).”  Dracula’s disdain for commoners is so great that even after death, (if Dracula ever does dies) he is comforted by the notion that his bones will not be in the same vicinity as the bones of commoners.  This class based disdain is also seen in the manner he treats the common woman whose baby he steals. Rather than sucking her blood, he lets the wolves eat her, as if to suggest that her common blood would taint his own noble blood.  Later in the novel, Count Dracula sucks the blood of Lucy, who is not a commoner as she is to marry the aristocrat Arthur Holmwood.  Through Count Dracula’s statements and actions, it is apparent that he does not want to be associated with, or interact with people who have common blood.

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.