Marching on through the novel

Most of you by now should be heading into Chapter 20, and a lot has happened along the way...

The first time I read this (which, incidentally was on a 12 hr train ride from Toronto to NYC), I remember being really suspicious of Quincy Morris - he comes back suddenly into the picture, and then when he shoots the bat (or attempts to) I couldn't help but think that there was more to him ... or perhaps I've been watching too many episodes of 'Columbo' ... it seemed too pathetic to just have him make them jump, and there be no real other discernable reason for the shooting. I suppose it reinforces his Americanness (remembering that that was really still a very new idea), and of course again alerts us to the presence of the bat, but was the window shattering necessary? I'm unconvinced.

In other news, Van Helsing's philosophising provides some interesting rationalising of the presence of the 'Un-Dead' among us. Do we at this point find ourselves becoming convinced by his logic, like Dr Seward? There is, after all, quite a strong message to the contemporary audience, and perhaps to us too, regarding the supernatural, and a deeper spiritual realm, when he says:

Ah, it is the fault of our science that wants to explain it all; and if it explain it not, then it says there is nothing to explain. But yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which think themselves new; and which are yet but the old which pretend to be young - like the fine ladies at the opera.

Remember at this time that science was replacing religion as the main guiding factor. As it advanced rapidly, people became more and more obsessed with the idea of fact, and being able to prove things, as the structure of the novel emphasises. Whatever Stoker's metaphorical message, it is certainly true that the logical and rational argument laid out by Van Helsing is carefully thought out to make most sense to the discerning late Victorian reader... Shame the accents are less convincing eh?!

My favourite line...

... has to be:

"Chasing an errant swarm of bees is nothing to following a naked lunatic when the fit of escaping is upon him!"

Indeed, Dr Seward - we do need an exclamation mark! 

Why does this sentence stand out and even make us chuckle? Could it be because it is so matter of fact, when it compares two completely out-of-the ordinary and random things? Why would anyone chase a swarm of bees? But, more to the point - it makes it sound like he often chases naked lunatics... perhaps he does... or perhaps this is Stoker going too far...?

It is coming - coming - coming!

Well, doesn't the pace pick up a little here? Why do you think the first part of the novel solely follows Jonathan, and then, as it progresses, flips between more and more points? Does it add realism to the plot? Does it give a sense of the storm gathering (in a metaphorical way)? As Dracula approaches on the ship, the pathetic fallacy is pretty impressive! Look at my earlier link regarding the sublime in this chapter for a further consideration of the idea, and in order to view some of the artists mentioned.

What do you think is the significance of the dog, and the bat and the bird? Could it be that Dracula is morphing into different animals? Some scholars suggest that in portraying him in this way Stoker is aiming to incorporate Darwin's theory of evolution. If so, what does this say about Stoker's response to evolution? Does he see it as a positive or as a threat? If Dracula is a shape-shifter, how would this fit with the idea of obscurity? Does this make the concept of a vampire easier or more difficult to grasp?

Lucy continues to be developed into the passive heroine, becoming more and more pathetic in these chapters. Do we feel sympathy for her? I find it hard to summon much... Rather, I think, we feel for Mina, who, for a long time has lost her fiance, and now her best friend is fading fast. Combine this with the fact that Lucy's mother is dying so Mina can't tell her her fears for Lucy, and surely Mina is en route to a nervous breakdown...  What is the symbolism here? Is it that the old order of women is past? Or does it signal an end to wealthy families' domination of life? Does Lucy have her just desserts, having broken men's hearts? Is this a warning to any of us who play the field? After all, why is it that it is Lucy who sleepwalks? Surely it would be more convincing to have the woman who is under pressure, i.e. Mina, the one that lets it all out in her unconscious... Just a few thoughts. Nevertheless, notice how we are being conditioned to receive Lucy as innocent victim: in her nightdress (which we assume to be white and thin) - implying innocence - as does the point that Mina makes - that Lucy follows her "with the obedience of a child". 

Incidentally - why does the dog cower? What is it sensing? Is it Lucy that is having such a negative effect?

Meanwhile, things are hotting up - Renfield is on the loose, his Master having summoned him (a bit Voldemort-esque here!) and the only vaguely good news is that Jonathan is alive, if being looked after by nuns, and raving in delirium. Interesting that Mina is told to marry him - by Harker's boss! Some new woman there then! So, leaving Lucy at a terrible time, she heads off to marry JH: a dilemma really - both of them have equal need of her!

A FREE copy of Dracula!!

Click on the title of this post and it will take you to simply audiobooks... where the free book of the month for October is none other than... you've guessed it...

Dracula!

A consideration of the sublime with pictures

Some useful extra discussion of the sublime  - with illustrations!

Shared via AddThis

Not the only ones

How exciting to find another Dracula blogging project happening simultaneously! 

Check out this link: http://infinitesummer.org/dracula/

Some really good posts!

Keeping up with Context

And then the scene switches completely... 

Lots of people getting frustrated with this interlude - just as it's all getting exciting at Castle Dracula! This frustration may blind us to the detail that Stoker weaves into the letters... important detail about the heroines of the novel - for yes - there are heroines too! 

We have heard mention of Mina and now we find out more. In the first few lines we (had we been reading the novel with the contemporary audience) would have been able to pinpoint her social status. Why? Well, from her occupation: 'assistant schoolmistress' implies that she has few financial resources of her own. Unmarried, yet educated women didn't have that many options for supporting themselves. Notice too her interest in lady journalists - remember our discussions of the 'New Women' surfacing at this time... where does Mina fit into this?

Building on this - we also have reference to shorthand, to stenographs, to the typewriter - all modern inventions at the time! Stoker is trying really hard to plant this in the time in which he is writing - but for what purpose? Why would you do this? 

What about Lucy? Several blog posts asking - what's the point in Lucy? Well, look at how she's being established. Very pretty and men seem to be falling over themselves to propose. She's wearing a 'white lawn frock'.... bells should be ringing by now. Think back to 'The Nightmare' by Fuseli and the paintings of the gothic revival: many feature pretty ladies in white dresses, who are ill, or become so... What do you think Lucy's function may become? 

Then there's the sleep walking. Remember that psychology is a new science at the time, and people are beginning to research dreams and study the consciousness - again this is aimed at the discerning late Victorian reader! Similarly the inclusion of Dr Seward's diary (which is kept in phonograph) explains his passion for... 'new classification' - think about Darwin - the Victorians are the collectors, the classifiers, the organisers of the natural world. He even makes references to contemporary scientists. Again - what is the purpose? I would suggest it is to make it seem as real as possible - because the more you can associate with, the creepier the unrealistic items become, and the more you begin to question what you know.

So, for modern readers, yes, maybe this is a release of tension... but for the contemporary reader...? Something worth considering in coursework - what would happen if you plunged this into the modern day - things caught on CCTV, posts by email...? Gothic takes the supernatural elements and plunges them into a contemporary setting, making the reader try to separate truth from fiction. The most effective are surely those in which it is hardest to separate the two?