Dracula

[Patroclus]

Aside for some Poe, I am not accustomed to reading Gothic Literature. So, I was a bit befuddled (how does one fuddle?) when I leanred that the graduate program that I am going into this fall seems to have a fixation with Gothic Literature and savagism. In fact, for my Americal Lit seminar, the only assigned book is an anthology of Gothic literature.

At any rate, I was at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I saw a deal to buy two books (on a particular rack) at $5.99 a piece, and get a third book free. Well, far be it from me to not not get on top of a deal like that, so I picked-up a few books, including Mary Shelley's Frankesnstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Of course, I found a lot of what I expected to find: a lot of "spooky" images and a dominance of evil. Also, what I found interesting was the power that decidedly Catholic symbols had over the vampires (i.e. The Crucifix and the Host). As I got further into it, I started to suspect that this was a books fixated on a theme of faith inspite of the world's "enlightenment." Consider this quote, found towards the end of the book:

Our toil must be in silence, and our effots all in secret; for this enlightened age, when men believe not even what they see, the doubting of wise men would be his [Dracula's] greatest srength.

Of course, Dracula is often referred to as "a devil." And, I heard it said once (though I am not sure if it is true), that the name "Dracula" is somehow derived from a latin word meaning "devil."

For those who may be more familiar with Gothic literature, does this make sense? Is it a common theme?

-Rob

[Piebald]

Dracula means "Son of the Dragon", I think.

Great Quote!

[Patroclus]

Thanks, Hamster.

[SynchroKnight]

I can't say I'm too familiar with gothic fiction generally (though I have read the two books you mentioned).

I think the observation you made concerning faith vs. "enlightenment" is right on. The tension between these two ideas is what makes good gothic fiction. The struggle to make sense of the supernatural.

I don't think it is any coincidence that this literature flourished post enlightenment, or that it still grips us today. (though today, the monsters are sometimes presented with naturalistic explanations for their powers).

I don't think, however, that Dracula is entirely one sided on the faith/enlightenment problem. Of course faith is the force of good in the novel, but I felt the character of Dr. Van Helsing to be an attempt to merge both ideas into one character.

For one thing he is a doctor, and even though he believes in the supernatural, he brings a scientist's sensibilities to his mission. He attacks Dracula as he would a virus. He uses his knowledge of the natural and the supernatural to vanquish his foe.

just my thoughts.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133708#post133708)
SynchroKnight:

I can't say I'm too familiar with gothic fiction generally (though I have read the two books you mentioned).

I think the observation you made concerning faith vs. "enlightenment" is right on. The tension between these two ideas is what makes good gothic fiction. The struggle to make sense of the supernatural.

Okay, then I think I have something to loo at in the future.

I don't think it is any coincidence that this literature flourished post enlightenment, or that it still grips us today. (though today, the monsters are sometimes presented with naturalistic explanations for their powers).

Yeah, I was thinking about the pseudo-evolved creatures that Ann Rice portrays in her novels. Whereas, though rare, her vampires have the capacity for good, Stoker's vampires seem eternall imprisoned, and unchageably bent towards evil.

I don't think, however, that Dracula is entirely one sided on the faith/enlightenment problem. Of course faith is the force of good in the novel, but I felt the character of Dr. Van Helsing to be an attempt to merge both ideas into one character.

For one thing he is a doctor, and even though he believes in the supernatural, he brings a scientist's sensibilities to his mission. He attacks Dracula as he would a virus. He uses his knowledge of the natural and the supernatural to vanquish his foe.

just my thoughts.

That is a very good point that I had not thought of before

Thank you very much.

Any more comments?

[NeilUnreal]

The main themes in Dracula center around the Victorian/Early Edwardian concepts of sexual virtue and role of male-female relationships in preserving, destroying, and redeeming that virtue. Dracula is a "type" of the worldly gentleman who seduces and abandons under-cautious young ladies. Mina is a type of the young lady whose faith and good heart sustain her virtue and eventually redeem the villain (albeit at a price).

All of the vampire stuff, etc., is artistic window-dressing to make these themes palatable and enjoyable as a story. To really understand Dracula, it must be viewed in the larger context of Victorian society moving towards Edwardian society. I would recommend exploring similar themes in Dickens, Collins, the Brontes, etc.

-Neil

[Undomiel]

The vampire theme is ancient. In Nephilim lore, the Rephaim (the Weakeners) were called the undead and the unresurrectable. These human hybrids were the result of fallen angels who had tainted the human gene pool, causing any hybrid to lose his or her ability to be resurrectable. Weird stuff.

[NeilUnreal]

Along similar lines to those indicated by Undomiel is George MacDonald's Lilith. It is based on the legend that -- prior to Eve -- Adam had an angelic wife who became a vampiric demon.

-Neil