Course Blog

Over the course of my reading for tomorrow’s class I was struck by the peculiarity of Dracula’s representation of strength as presented in a gendered lens. By this I mean to say that the novel flips the generally accepted conventions of unfeeling men and nurturing women while at the same time managing to come across as both sexist and dismissive. This becomes clear at the end of chapter seventeen when we are told that Lord Godalming, in a moment of severe grief over the death of Lucy, “laid his head” on Mina’s shoulder “and cried like a wearied child whilst he shook with emotion” (245). I found this to be interesting in that it seemed to show a weakness in the usually perpetuated façade of indelible masculinity in the Victorian Era. While this is happening, however, Mina is presented as a strong women with stable emotions even though she herself has just endured the loss of a close friend. Such a dynamic is clearly at odds with established orthodoxy and thus jumped out at me immediately. Just after this, however, the novel somehow attempts to re-establish a patriarchal system of gender relations where the vulnerable male is able to un-ironically claim to be the protector of the woman he is literally relying on for comfort at that very minute. This is shown when Lord Godalming tells Mina “if a man’s esteem and gratitude are ever worth the winning, you have won my today. If ever the future should bring to you a time when you need a man’s help, believe me, you will not call in vain” (246). Apparently, in Victorian England, masculinity was so important that it was able to exert itself onto a woman who so clearly didn’t need it. In a time when gender roles so dominated the social landscape, the way they managed to both subvert them and still promote patriarchal values was interesting to say the least.

During the Victorian period, which Dracula is set in, the role of women in society was a major issue. Women were held to certain standards and obligations. They were supposed to be innocent and pure virgins until marriage when they can bare children and take on a mother role. In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the characters Mina Murray and Lucy Westenra depict the ideal Victorian woman and the worst. It is through these characters that the novel exposes Victorian fears of women gaining power in society. Mina is depicted as a pure and loyal woman. She misses and patiently waits for Jonathan when he is away and dutifully takes care of him when he returns. When Doctor Van Helsing meets Mina for the first time, he is overwhelmed with how wonderful she is, he says, “I come here full of respect for you, and you have given me hope- hope, not in what I am seeking of, but that there are good woman still left to make life happy- good women, whose lives and whose truths may make lesson for the children that are to be (pg 197- 198).” Mina is a symbol of hope because she is not seducible by Dracula and is loyal to her husband. Stoker does not sexualize her at all as he does Lucy. He links sexualized women with utter evil. We first learn that Lucy has three suitors who all love her dearly. Lucy writes to Mina, “ Why can’t they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble?” (pg 67). The “they” Lucy is referring to is society. Early on in the novel she questions the Victorian ideals, wanting something different. Dracula is able to seduce Lucy and turn her into a sexualized vampire. Through this, Stoker shows the potential for good, Victorian women, to be corrupted into evil and sexual beings with unholy desires. Stoker also uses Lucy’s character to instill fear in woman to stray from the rigid Victorian beliefs. If they do not follow Victorian culture, they will be come evil and demon like beings. Van Helsing says, “When they become such (referring to Lucy as the ‘Un- Dead’), there comes with the change the curse of immorality; they cannot die, but most go on and on age after age adding new victims and multiplying the evils of the world” (pg 229). The “new victims” he speaks of, are the women who will follow down the disobeying path like Lucy did. Van Helsing insists on stopping Lucy, so she cannot corrupt any of the pure, loyal women left. The only way to bring her back to her back to her pure self is for her fiancé, Arthur, to drive a stake through her heart. Van Helsing makes it clear that Arthur must be the one to do this, as he is her fiancé. Arthur thrusting the stake through Lucy’s heart returns her as a virgin and monogamous wife. Arthur regains his power over his wife and cleans her blood of all other men including Quincy, Van Helsing and Seward. In doing so, he claims her once again, as his and only his fiancé; restoring her to the pure Victorian woman she was forced to be.

Considering how thoroughly we’ve covered the topics of blood, female sexuality, and fears surrounding the east, it’s been rather difficult finding a topic that hasn’t had a wooden stake driven through it. But what about Renfield, the lunatic with an insatiable appetite? He’s been a character of growing importance as his connection to Dracula becomes revealed, allowing the protagonists to gain an insight into the psychological aspect of vampirism as well as offering clues as to Dracula’s whereabouts.

Although Renfield’s zoophagous tendencies are observed early on, it isn’t until later that Dr. Seward begins to connect his behavior to Dracula as more than just a coincidence. Renfield repeatedly shouts about a “master,” and his temperment changes with the comings and goings of Dracula to England. His psychosis strangely subsides, to which Dr. Seward remarks “that his instinct is satisfied as to the vampire’s ultimate triumph,” surely a reference to Dracula’s success in converting Lucy. (240)

More importantly, I believe it’s worth exploring Dr. Seward’s diagnosis of zoophagy as it pertains to the novels portrayal of male vs. female vampires. Personally, one of my favorite scenes involves the revelation that Renfield “gave many flies to one spider and many spiders to one bird, and then wanted a cat to eat the many birds.” Beyond the disturbing imagery of a man who spends his time collecting flies and spiders (although too similar to myself, thankfully I’m not in an insane asylum) his method of sustaining his own life via blood can be considered more primitive and repulsive than even Dracula and the other vampires methods. Admittedly I had to skip ahead in the novel for mentions of Renfield until I found evidence of my claim, but I believe it fits quite well in this theory.

(SPOILERS)

Renfield admits later in the novel that Dracula often came to him and “promised things … he used to send in the flies … and big moths.” (298) Up until this point, Dracula has only converted women into vampires, not a single male is known other than himself. Yet still Dracula has this follower who is a man and longs for immortality. Rather than bite him and bring him into his harem of super-sexual vampire seductresses, Dracula seems to use Renfield as a pawn, possibly to get close to Lucy and Mina.  In effect, Dracula humiliates Renfield by making him eat vermin. The poor guy is literally told to eat what most people consider disgusting pests to gain the same life-sustaining effects of blood drinking without the sexualization due to him not being a woman. This further supports our class discussions regarding the claim that the novel’s predominant theme is around the fear of expressed female sexuality.

 

 

On many occasions throughout Dracula we have seen Vampires occupy and manipulate dreams in a supernatural and strategic way. From Jonathan Harker’s first experience with the three voluptuous women at Castle Dracula, throughout Lucy’s nights of sleepwalking, and now potentially into Mina’s dreams of creeping fog and misty columns in her bedroom, Vampires seem to be central to the characters’ experiences of dreaming.

In both Jonathan and Mina’s diary entries, their dreams are described as lifelike, Jonathan calling the dream “so real that now, sitting here in the broad, full sunlight of the morning, I cannot in the least believe that it was all sleep” (44). These dreams seem so real because they are Vampires manipulating their victim’s perceptions of reality and their actions, so as to prey on them. I think that this representation of Vampires as manipulating victims in their sleep allowed Victorian characters to maintain the purity of innocence in their seduction, while also allowing for allusions to sexuality and fears of the night. Lucy’s dreams caused her to sleepwalk, going places she would never normally go during the night and allowing herself to be fed on by Dracula in her altered state of mind. By removing Lucy’s will and allowing vampires to manipulate their victims in their dreams, vampires become even more powerful. This also creates the contrast between the typically peaceful image of dying in one’s sleep and the violence of being bitten and attacked by a vampire.

In all of these cases, the victims lack control while they are dreaming, as Mina says she is “powerless to act” (275). As there are such sexual connotations to the exchange of blood in this novel, and as vampires are hypersexualized with their youth, beauty, and reliance on seduction to lure in victims, I think the powerlessness of the victims allows these characters to be viewed as innocent and pure in the sexualized encounter with a vampire. Where the Victorian era emphasized sexual purity so heavily, this total lack of awareness and control by victims could ease the fear that they may be made impure by their interactions with vampires.

Numbers have, for centuries, been known to represent a variety of things. Specifically, relating to spirituality and the meanings behind numbers. As an example, the number 2 deals with balance, power, etc. After closely analyzing Dracula, it occurred to me that the number 3 was a prevalent, and reoccurring character throughout the novel.

There are three female vampires, “In the moonlight opposite me were three young women, ladies by their dress and manner” (44). The Count asks Jonathan to write three letters when he is held in captivity, “Last night the count asked me in the suavest tones to write three letters…” (49). Lucy gets three marriage proposals from three different men in one day, “Just fancy! THREE proposals in one day!” (64.) When Jonathan goes to find the Count in the chapel, he comes across his coffin on the third try, “Into two of these I went, but saw nothing except fragments of old coffins and piles of dust; in the third, however, I made a discovery. There, in one of the great boxes, of which there were fifty in all, on a pile of newly dug earth, lay the Count!” (50). Lastly, the old man from the harbor has two male friends that are with him, “I came up here an hour ago with Lucy, and we has a most interesting talk with my old friend and the two others who always come and join him” (73).

Picking up on this reoccurring symbol made me think of the sign of the Devil: 666. There are three 6’s, which connects back to Dracula and the idea that Count Dracula and the Devil are one and the same. Relating to the idea of religion in Dracula, the count represents the Anti-Christ, but rises from the dead. Jesus was resurrected three days later. The number 3 ties the idea of religion together with Dracula.

The titular character of Dracula and his 3 vampire seductresses’ use of blood to maintain their youth raises many questions about immortality. Thematically, blood has served countless roles throughout literary and religious history, whether symbolizing familial bonds or as an offering in the form of blood sacrifices to appease the gods. Consequently the role of blood as a symbol and functional aspect of biology has changed over time to reflect new understandings and shifts in thinking.

Dracula sits at the intersection between the use of blood as both a symbol of traditional superstition and modern medical practice. Early medical practices stemming from antiquity used a ‘humors’ system, whereby bodily fluids such as blood and bile were to be kept in balance, and when out of balance, led to sickness. A widespread practice that resulted from this way of thinking is known as bloodletting, whereby a vein or artery was punctured and blood was drained from the patient to restore the balance of their humors. Eventually bloodletting fell into disuse, however the practice lasted well into the 19^th century.

I believe on some level, Dracula serves as a form of commentary on this antiquated practice by comparing the blood-draining tendencies of vampires to the outdated practice of bloodletting, all while commenting on the pursuit of immortality.

Dr. Seward takes on the patient Renfield, who is “unlike the normal lunatic … [and is] determined to understand him as well as [he] can.” (68) Renfield potentially serves as the embodiment of humanities attempts at finding immortality. Seeing it as an age old pursuit that he gets “nearer than ever before to the heart of this mystery.” (68) The secret of which lies in our understanding of blood, with humanities perception of it being backwards, maybe the vampires actually are on to something?

As the novel progresses and Lucy is fed on by a vampire, her blood is drained and her health deteriorates. Dr. Seward cannot determine what afflicts Lucy and so calls for the help of Dr. Van Helsing. When Van Helsing sees the ghostly pallor of Lucy’s cheeks he notes “she will die for sheer want of blood to keep the heart’s actions as it should be. There must be a transfusion of blood at once.” (131) Following the blood transfusion, Lucy’s health quickly improves, drawing the distinction between the effects of bloodletting, as symbolized by the affects of a vampire feeding, and the life-restoring effects of blood-transfusing. This connection is further supported by Dr. Seward’s comments following a second transfusion using his own blood whereby he claims that “no man knows till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away in the veins of the woman he loves.” (138) Stoker quite literally defines the substance as “life-blood,” with them being one and the same.

 

 

Although one might think that Bram Stoker is describing the British xenophobic attitudes of Victorian England, I believe the fear of an unknown future is what this is all about. This book was written at a time when there were some many new and emerging ideas and the birth of many of the sciences and philosophical thought took root in the Victorian era.

A crisis in faith ensued during this time. People were questioning organized religion and its role in their lives. When Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was printed and the discovery of the Neanderthal Man made the news, people started questioning the meaning of time, faith, spirituality and mysticism. Time was no longer linear, and people struggle with the biblical teachings that the universe was created in 7 days. If the bible is wrong, what is right?

Many began contemplating mysticism and the supernatural world. Although the Roman Catholic Church was not the predominant religion of England, and had shared a very turbulent history with Anglicism, all of the ritual and mysticism connected to catholicism captured wide interest. There was even a movement of people wanting to incorporate some of the rituals of Catholicism into the Anglican Church. The incense, chants, vestments, and sacred relics titillated and captured the attention of those questioning their own beliefs about life and death.

The bones of saints and martyrs buried in crypts beneath the floors of cathedrals. The body of a saint, contained in a glass case, undefiled by decomposition for hundreds of years. The vaults in small chapels within cathedrals, containing bishops and cardinals, and the faithful pray over them. The rise in interest in demonic possession and exorcism drew many into the realm of the supernatural. “The man was simply fastened by his hands, tied one over the other, to a spoke of the wheel. Between the inner hand and the wood was a crucifix, the set of beads on which it was fastened being around both wrists and wheel, and all kept fast by binding cords”. The Coast Guard, having determined the man had to have tied himself, forces the onlookers to know that something diabolical had to have happened. The log book supports this assumption.

Throughout the novel thus far, we have been introduced to quite a few female characters, but most importantly Mina Harker and Lucy Westerna (and, well, the three female vampires). Living in the time of the British Victorian era,  these women were confined to fulfilling clearly-defined social standards. That entailed appearing pure, polite, abstinent – all together virtuous, really. Luckily for readers, Mina Harker and Lucy Westerna seem to encapsulate all that a Victorian woman should. While Mina may be considered stronger and more resourceful, and Lucy weaker yet attractive nonetheless, they both possess the “womanly quality” of virtuousness – which is a necessity for women surviving in the time. Well, that is, if one is aiming to look favorable in the public eye.

However, the three female vampires pose a threat to this conception that women should be polite, pure, and collected. In all actuality, they are poles apart, as they are exceedingly sexual in behavior (“The fair girl went on her knees, and bent over me, fairly 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….” p. 43) and violent in action (“The women closed round, whilst I was aghast with horror; but as I looked, they disappeared, and with them the dreadful bag” p. 45). They even feed on a baby child! Alright, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think this sharp contrast between Mina & Lucy (well, before Lucy becomes a vampire) and the three, voluptuous women is trying to point at something much more complex about the structure of Victorian society. What if Stoker added these three, female vampires into the novel to awaken the emotions of society, especially men? Think about it: while men dived into the novel, they were forced into a new world – a world where women existed completely different from that their wife. Rather than following the “guidelines” of the domestic sphere, men were forced to read about a world where women are repulsive, and engage in acts such as fellatio (or blood sucking?) in the presence of others. Stoker is doing something very different here – something that conflicts with Victorian norms. He is transforming women from elegant and proper individuals to diabolical creatures hungry for sex and, more importantly, blood. Worst of all: what if male readers are enjoying this impolite description of women? To the people of the Victorian era, this truly was a terrifying thought: that very degenerate, sexual beings can exist in an ever-so genteel society.

 

One of the most interesting reoccurring themes in Dracula is xenophobia. Both Johnathan Harker and Count Dracula himself point out and comment on oddities, blaming the country of Transylvania on them. The most interesting part about this is that many times it is in fact Dracula who uses his country as an excuse. We see this many times throughout the text. For example, after the incident where Harker cuts himself shaving and the Count lunges at his neck, he states “Take care how you cut yourself. It is more dangerous than you think in this country (Stoker 43).” This quote seems to highlight a distinct difference between England and Transylvania and makes Harker more wary. Dracula seems to be using his country to justify his own action, as perhaps he realizes the English look down upon Transylvania as undeveloped and barbaric. Yet Dracula seems to be genuinely warning him, and perhaps this comment is only to gain the trust of Harker, as he realizes his country will be a believable excuse. Earlier in the novel, Dracula does a similar thing, by emphasizing the difference between Transylvania and England saying “Our ways are not your ways, and there shall be to you many strange things (Stoker 35).” In this quote the Count again seems to be justifying the supernatural happenings by using his unmodern country as an excuse. If Dracula understands this difference between the two countries, does that make him more civilized and more trustworthy to Harker? What’s really interesting about this is that he seems to take pride and passion in his country’s history when relating it to Harker, and simply undermined it with such warnings the next minute. Dracula seems to also be using this “difference” the English seem to focus on to dismiss the warnings of the common people Harker encountered on the way to his house. In the passage where Dracula is explaining to Harker why he wants to perfect his English he says “The common people know me, and I am master (Stoker 34).” This also brings in the issue of class and nobility, as Dracula seems to be hinting at Harker that he is less barbaric, and above all the people that warned him about coming to the castle and were frightened by it. If that is the case, Harker need not be afraid of Dracula, as he is more trustworthy. That entire passage also seems to highlight that Dracula understands the difference in sophistication between the English and foreigners. He almost gives off the impression of being obsessed with the English way of life, which will also hopefully make Harker less suspicious of intentions he might have.

The presence of these passages in the text seem to contribute to an underlying sense of xenophobia that was so prevalent during the time in England. Was this intentionally put into the novel by Stoker, either to frighten readers about other countries and foreigners? Or was it perhaps so prevalent at the time that Stoker unintentionally inserted xenophobic aspects with realizing. Either way it is an important theme to note, especially considering the time which the novel is a product of.

 

”…i always have when the Count in near; but at the instant I saw that the cut had bled a little, and the blood was trickling over my chin. I laid down the razor, turning as I did so half round to look for some sticking plaster. When the Count saw my face, his eyes blazer which a sort of demoniac fury, and he suddenly made a grab at my throat. I drew away and his hand touched the string of beads which held the crucifix. It made an instant change in him, for the fury passed so quickly that I could hardly believe that it was ever there.” (33)

In the Judaic tradition, the consumption of blood can be two very different things. In Judaism, blood is considered to be the source of life. For this reason, meat is not considered to be kosher unless the animal is slaughtered by cutting the jugular, draining most of the blood, and then salting the meat, so as to drain the rest of the blood. However, these traditions were commonly ignored throughout history in cases of blood libel, where Jews were accused of ritually murdering young Christian children around Passover and using their blood to bake matzah. While reading this passage, I saw a parallel between Bram Stoker’s Dracula and blood libels. Dracula tries to hide his gruesome secret, but goes ballistic at the first sight of blood, his primary source of sustenance. However, upon touching the sign of the crucifix, he is transformed, or converted, back into a normal human being. Because of this, I believe that this scene shows some latent anti-Semitism. Dracula was published in 1897, when anti-Semitism was still fairly prevalent in Europe, and Bram Stoker has already showed some racism by this point in the novel. Therefore, I think that this scene, in addition to revealing Count Dracula’s monstrous nature, shows an undertone of anti-Semitism in the novel.