This middle portion of the novel mostly deals with the hunting of Dracula. In this process the reader may notice a few interesting portrayals of social class. By this point in the novel, there have been several encounters with the working class, but all seem to follow the same pattern. The worker in question is reticent or impudent until bribed either with alcohol or coin (presumably to purchase alcohol). This is the case with the zookeeper, earlier in the novel, as well as every worker Jonathan encounters while tracking Dracula’s boxes. The overall impression of the working class is that they are loud, rude drunkards who speak of “much blood and bloom” and are useless until bribed.
Conversely, none of the vampire hunting could be accomplished without money. Lord Godalming’s title opens doors (pun very, very intended) at the Piccadilly and with various solicitors and policemen. Jonathan’s constant bribery also nods to his own moderate wealth, even as a solicitor. All the members of this hunt have the ability to leave their jobs at any moment to run off to the continent to follow Dracula. This proves both the finances to accommodate travel and the willingness to suspend a salary that characterizes them all as well off.
The general effect of these social class descriptions, then, is that vampire hunting is not a working class activity. The chase itself requires money, but there is also a required nobility of spirit that is present in all our upper class characters and completely absent from the working class characters. While not unsurprising from a 19th century novel, it is always valuable to apply a socioeconomic lens to a reading to find greater cultural depth than may appear at one’s first reading.
I think you bring up a very good point about the focus on money throughout the novel and its connection to the characterization of both the upper and working class characters. It is interesting to see how others react to Lord Godalming’s title such as the example you gave at Piccadilly where Jonathan’s initial inquiries were quickly dismissed until the mention of Lord Godalming.
I also found it interesting that later on, Mina herself brings up the necessity of money in their tasks which definitely supports the theory that vampire hunting is only an activity for those belonging to the upper class. Mina comments on “the wonderful power of money” and is grateful that Lord Godalming and Mr. Morris are willing to spend their money so freely in order for their journeys to be started so quickly and so well equipped. Certainly, a lack of money would have made it impossible for them to pursue and catch up to Dracula. Even with all their resources, they all barely made it in time to kill Dracula before the sunset and another opportunity was lost.
Meanwhile, the members of the working class are held back by not only their lack of money, but also by their superstitions. This can be seen at the beginning of the novel when the villagers are too afraid of Dracula to fight back against him and even to properly warn Jonathan of the dangers he faces. Dracula preys on this weakness of the working class and because of this, has no reason to fear them. On the other hand, the educated upper class is better equipped to anticipate his movements and track him down, so once he realizes that this gang of vampire hunters is on to him, he flees and hastens to return to Transylvania.
After giving it a little thought, I agree with you completely. Throughout the novel, the five main guys, Van Helsing, Jonathan, Arthur, Quincy, and John, are valiant even when faced with the most heart aching struggles or abominable sights. From a romantic perspective, Arthur, Quincy, and John were all worthy of Lucy. The offer all they have when it is demanded. Similarly, Jonathan is worthy of Mina. Every upper-class character contributed all they could to fight Dracula.
The lower class people were always reluctant to help out. I think that this idea is more rounded in a “socioeconomic lens” as you said. From the lower-class worker’s perspectives, a wealthier man seeking answers from you might seem demeaning. One might ask himself, since when has Jonathan (representing wealthier people) ever wanted anything to do with me? Because the lower class workers of Eastern Europe have no knowledge of Dracula, how could they be sure that Jonathan isn’t merely exploiting their knowledge? They would have no way of knowing that their responses are being put to good use. In a more realistic mindset, Who wouldn’t ask for money? I would!
The upper class men definitely portray the idealistic ‘manliness’.
I squeamed a little bit when Mina used the word wonderful in praising “the wonderful power of money”. I suppose, really, it could be viewed simply as thankfulness for the means to complete the task in a society that limits some activities to the wealthy, but something about the context made me twinge. Probably because it came immediately after exalting the men in the group who are “earnest, and so true, and so brave”. The juxtaposition definitely felt like a hoity-toity “We’re of high caliber; and thank goodness we’re also rich”, with a lethargic, drawn-out goodness.
That reminds me also of the way the classes are separated by speech patterns. Besides “blood and bloom”, we’re treated to many dialects amongst working men, yet our team of vampire slayers (Van Helsing’s verb conjugation excepting) can’t be told apart in their use of spotless Queen’s English. I automatically read the protagonists’ words in received pronunciation. I wonder if that says something about me!
A main key concept that seems to be evident in my reading of Dracula and in Gothic Lit is shape shifting. Within shape shifting, characters seem to shift in aspects of physical transformation and/or the mental. The obvious example of physical shape shifting can be seen in the character of Lucy as she transforms into a vampire. Dr. Seward tells of the event in the churchyard in his diary when he states, “We all looked on in horrified amazement as we saw, when he stood back, the woman, with a corporeal body as real at that moment as our own, pass in through the interstice where scarce a knife-blade could have gone.” With new powers of being a vampire, Lucy gained the ability to shift shape into even the smallest of crevices.
Along with shape shifting but focusing more on the mental aspects of characters, instability of mental status is common. As seen more in some characters than others, the psychological state is easily accessible and controlled by some sort of outside evil force. In Dracula, the character’s mental states seem to grow strained and anxious after a visit from the monster. Directly after a supposed visit from the Count, Mina notes her surprising change of emotions when she says, “Oh, why did I ever go to Whitby? There now, crying again! I wonder what has come over me to-day. I must hide it from Jonathan, for if he knew that I had been crying twice in one morning—I, who never cried on my own account, and whom he has never caused to shed a tear…” Along with this statement but on a different mental spectrum, Renfield, a lunatic character whose mental state seems to always be changing, becomes extremely proper and seemingly sane after being visited by the Count. Renfield goes from fits of licking up Dr. Seward’s blood to stating proper speeches such as, “…If I may state my intellectual position I am, so far as concerns things purely terrestrial, somewhat in the position which Enoch occupied spiritually!” Dr. Seward even has to ask Renfield questions of the statement because he can’t seem to understand its perplexity himself.
The two points that you brought up are both really interesting. The concept of shape shifting in this novel is more of an external force, rather than an internal one. The characters are becoming “one” by blood transfusions and external forces such as that. You state two good points, but don’t really expand on the meanings of them. The mental states of the characters could be expanded on and also you could explain why the mental states of the characters correlate with the victims chosen by Dracula.
The mental states of the characters do diminish as the novel progresses and as the characters are exposed to more and more evil. A point that I think is really interesting is how Dracula chooses his candidates. The people who he seems to choose, have some mental instability. There has to be something “evil” inside of these candidates that attract Dracula to them. Overall, I agree with your two points that were made and I believe you used a good amount of direct quotes from the novel.
Hello Nick
I agree with you that shape shifting is a major part of Gothic Literature and Dracula. Not just the physical aspect of shape shifting but the mental aspect as well. As you said the physical aspects of shape shifting are seen through Lucy and Mina slowly transforming into vampires. It’s ironic that they must go through such an ugly transformation process in order to become more beautiful when they are dead creatures. Arthur himself says that she looked more beautiful than he had ever seen her as he stared at her lifeless body. We also see the shape shifting of Dracula when a transforms into a bat at various times throughout the novel and when he dresses up in Jonathans clothes to go and to village. These two forms of shape shifting are different in that one is used for an evolutionary advantage to help him hunt and kill while the other is a form of deception. Dracula wants to convince the villagers that Jonthan has left his home. Maybe he stole the screaming women’s child in Jonathan’s clothes and that is why when she sees Jonathan in the window she calls him a monster.
I also agree with you on the mental shape shifting of Reinfeld. There are times when he seems totally insane and possessed and other times when he is normal human. As you said when Reinfeld encounters Mina it seems to calm him and keep him sane, but when he was there under the watch of Dr. Seward it was if he was a monster. I also think that Dracula’s personality does some shape shifting. We see him as a very polite and calm man at the beginning of the novel when he is with Jonathan in his castle. There is something strange about him but nothing that would suggest that he is the monster that we know. By the end of the novel we see him truly become a monster. When he says, “’My revenge is just begun! I spread it over centuries, and time is on my side. Your girls that you all love are mine already; and through them you and others shall yet be mine – my creatures, to do my bidding and to be my jackals when I want to feed ‘” we truly get the sense that he is evil and not the calm and quite man he tries to show.
Your concept about the psychological state being easily accessible and controlled by some sort of outside force is a good point. Dracula does seem to cause question to a character’s mental stability after they are so fortunate as to have been visited by him. It seems that you believe Renfield is the most affected by Dracula when I disagree. I think Jonathan is the most affected since he in fact did experience the monster’s wrath head on under Dracula’s roof. Even though Jonathan did not lose his life to his oncoming insanity, he did become paranoid throughout the novel. Mina even notices his nervousness and she even goes so far as to read his journal to get a sense of what had taken over her husband’s mind. Jonathan seems to be the most affected in my opinion because he is also the one to overcome Dracula’s power of intimidation. At the end Harker is able to assist in killing the monstrous beast once and for all.
The shapeshifting idea is also a fair point that in Lucy’s transformation she goes from being like MIna, a fragile woman, to the three vampire women at the beginning of the story. Shapeshifting seems counteract the idea of Victorian women in this novel. Lucy goes from sweet to sultry, from innocent to evil. I think that shapeshifting in the sense of who Lucy was and who she became is also a good concept to bring up when talking about transformation in the story. Transformation and shape shifting seems to be ideal when also talking about the psychological state of Lucy at her time of release from being a vampire. Mina also goes through this change but her connection to Dracula ends up playing against him by the end of the novel.
During my reading of “Dracula,” a theme I keep seeing repeated over and over again is a constant reminder of the supernatural, superstition, and ultimately, new knowledge versus old knowledge. Naturally, Dracula is a supernatural being, a vampire, but there is also instances of animals such as wolves, bats, and dogs being controlled by an individual (Dracula), mysterious blue flames appearing, and superstition that can control these supernatural elements, for example, the garlic that seemingly repels vampires. Van Helsing is on the hunt for Dracula using knowledge gained from none other than superstition and folklore (“old knowledge”). Jonathan notices that the peasants in Transylvania display crucifixes and pray at shrines in attempts at warding off things he doesn’t understand at the time, like the evil eye and vampires.
The culture in which Jonathan resides rejects the “idolatrous” nature of crucifixes and religious iconography; he also views such superstition in such a way that it is something of a novelty, to be thought of as quaint and rustic, not something to be taken seriously. It is this very thinking that makes those in Whitby, where Dracula arrives to seek new victims, vulnerable to attack. Dracula is a supernatural creature whose existence it rooted in superstition; when one turns a blind eye to folk remedies and legend, it renders them incapable of mounting a defense. This struggle between new knowledge and old knowledge is showcased in the book. The message of the book seems to be: embrace new knowledge, but don’t forget the old because there are elements in the old that ring true and can still help. Van Helsing knew this, and was thus able to kill the vampires with the combination of crucifixes, garlic, and in knowing how to kill a vampire, as well as how to find them. It was how he knew that Lucy had become a vampire upon her death, and how he was able to help Mina fight against Dracula’s calls after she’d fallen victim to him. It was because of this old knowledge that she knew what to do to try and prevent further attacks.
Catherine,
I very much agree that it is this notion of “new knowledge,” or the up-to-date information of the modern world, which prevents Englishmen and women from seeing the threat of vampires. After all, people will see what they expect to see because otherwise their entire notion of reality might be altered. This blindness by preconceptions is exactly what lands Jonathan in his tight spot over in Castle Dracula and also what prevents Mina or any of the men vampire-hunters from catching on to what was happening with Lucy. Dracula certainly chose the ideal location to leech upon, considering the villagers back home were getting a tad agitated with him (refer back to the visit of the frenzied mother; imagine the day when all of the villagers rise up to avenge the murdered babies). It is only through the intervention of a foreigner who feels no superiority over other foreign customs (as Jonathan takes very little of what the Transylvanian villagers tell him seriously) that the Englishmen stand a chance against the threat of vampires.
That said, most of our protagonists are quite adaptable once they accept the doctrines of Van Helsing. He proves that the tools of superstition are rooted in some kind of truth, and thus proves that “old knowledge” is actually quite applicable. The men find themselves wielding both 19th century guns as well as ancient crucifixes—an image both literal and symbolic of their entire method throughout the novel.
Catherine,
I like the idea of you elaboration on the use of several type of knowledge thought the novel to give an in depth look as to how Van Helsing and the others we able to manipulate said knowledge given though folklore and mythology as well as the possible modern technology they used to eliminate Dracula. However, within your post I only had one issue about it. Though you brought up the concept of “new knowledge” as well as the old, you gave no examples of how this new knowledge was implemented thought the novel.
Granted it could be implied that this knowledge could be implemented due to the time differentiation between the time in which the mythology and the folklore about the creature was written and the time setting of the novel, that being several hundred years. With the improved technology in both medicine and weaponry, little else is mention to show extensively how old and new knowledge were simultaneously implemented other than the blood transfusions needed to keep Lucy alive. Overall it could be safe to assume that the villagers could have also use the combination of old and new in order to protect themselves, carrying modern weaponry while keeping faith in there holy symbols.
Hi Catherine,
I definitely agree with what you had to say about utilizing both old and new world knowledge. As you mentioned, using items from superstition and old world legend was essential in the defeat of the vampires. Van Helsing seemed to be the only person who used and was even open to the concept of old world knowledge. The only real answer I can give to why that is, is the fact that he is a foreigner. He does not have the closed mind of an Englishman, and because of that he is able to question things that others would usually disregard as mere coincidence or not of concern. It was he who identified what the vampires were, but he was not overly superstitious or overly confident with his knowledge. Van Helsing also used what you called new knowledge. He knew about blood transfusions and modern medicine and used it to his advantage to help his friends. It seems that old world knowledge was used more to the advantage of the hunters than new knowledge since it was the old that defeated the vampires in the end.
Hello Catherine,
In response to your posting dealing with old and new knowledge, I completely agree with your idea of meshing the two types of knowledge in order to be able to stay up to date with defeating the vampires. In an ever changing world, we as humans must adapt along with the times in order to survive. This also applies to Count Dracula who has evolved his way of life In order to stay alive, and thus the vampire hunters, lead by Van Helsing, had to manipulate there “tools of the trade” in order to be able to stay relevant. I agree with you that “old knowledge” is vey prevalent, as Van Helsing constantly demonstrates (i.e. decapitation and a stake through the heart), but I think you should elaborate more on your meaning of “new knowledge”. From my interpretation of your writing, I believe you are referring to measures such as the blood transfusions given to Lucy in order to keep her from dying at the hands (or fangs for that matter) of the count himself. If this is in fact what you are referring to, than I completely agree with you as this modern adaptation taken to save those targeted by Dracula, although in this case to no avail, was a brilliant way to stay relevant with the counts antics.
(This is a very general outline of my ideas — if there is interest, I may expand on them later)
Chosen themes: the anti-hero and shades of gray between life and death on the spectrum.
For me, the above two themes are those which may not always occur in combination when reading Gothic literature but that always capture my interest individually and especially when they connect. The gray-scale of life is a fairly obvious one with Dracula. We have the Count who is clearly ‘undead’ but who tries his best, so far as it will suit him, to behave as though he were alive. Then we have characters in various stages of Vampirism: Lucy, Mena, the insane man, the vampire wives, the children Lucy attacked, and (I suspect but have not finished the book) perhaps Van Helsing himself? He at least seems to know how to think like a vampire, if that counts.
Also, we have the anti-hero. Dr. Frankenstein and his monster are the classic example from Gothic literature, but we can also say that about Van Helsing and a very generous soul could say it about Dracula. Van Helsing because, although he is helping, he is taking nearly all of the glory, he is undeniably creepy, deceptive, and the neither the reader nor the characters know anything about him aside from what he does in the story (hence my suspicion from the above paragraph). Dracula, while having few redeeming qualities, does appear to have been somehow cursed, he is capable of (at least pretending) compassion and even in a house with three lascivious lady vamps he seems to be very lonely. It almost seems that he, like Frankenstein monster for example, was created by another will, has been rejected his entire (after)life, and it seems that he may genuinely wish to know love and acceptance but he is not capable of fighting his own nature, which is to spread the plague of vampirism and to kill for his own nourishment.
I love the idea of shades of grey in Dracula. From my perspective, shades of grey between life and death correspond with shades of grey between good and evil. Although in the novel there is a definite good and a definite evil, many characters blur the line. For example, Mina is a young woman who we as readers entirely trust. She is pure, intelligent, and has a maternal instinct to take care of everyone around her. But when the count attempts to change her, we don’t know what to think. Is she a vampire? She is obviously rejecting the evil that is trying to take her over.
As far as Van Helsing goes, however, I can’t say that I agree. In my opinion, Van Helsing is one of the few characters the characters as well as we as readers can trust. He does have a mysterious past of which we know very little about, but that doesn’t make him untrustworthy. All we know is that he’s Dutch, but has a German accent, he had a son who died but we’re not sure how, and his wife went insane after their son’s death but he refused to leave her saying “with my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone, even I, who am faithful husband to this now-no-wife …” But it’s true, we have no idea how he knows what he does about vampires.
Dracula (the character) is a barbaric creature, but is painted as such very deliberately. Stoker shows Dracula on multiple occasions as a hoarder, the piles of gold in his castle, the large bags of money he keeps on him for some reason etc.. He is not satisfied with just one woman, the civilized characters in the novel all have one woman, even though they all are kind enough to die for the sake of the plot. Even Van Helsing speaks of his dead wife to whom he is still married in the church’s eye, yet Dracula has three sexy vampire wenches at his castle, and he comes to England to steal their women. He is overbearingly possessive, wrathful, jealous and childlike in many ways. What struck me though, was how he seems to be painted as primitive. He is the “lord” of a primitive people (as Harker makes no bones about depicting them) from some shady little country in central Europe, far away from the good god-fearing British folk with their money not being greedily hoarded, and their monogamy. Short of giving him big hairy knuckles which he drags along the ground as he walks, Dracula is quite sub-human even by 19th century standards. This could be a bit of xenophobia on Stoker’s part, at least Jekyll had a good side which he tried to preserve, Dracula was a big scary foreigner with no trace of goodness about him. They do however, share the same trait of being representative of human primitiveness. They both have an appearance of wholesomeness, but under the mask they are base monsters, killing and coveting.
I agree with you that Dracula is definitely a barbaric creature in the novel, and is seen as greedy and never satisfied. I feel that Dracula is somewhat cultured and in some ways more advanced than other characters in the novel though. He is very primitive in the way he goes about what he does but there is also a sort of cloud around him which he seems to flaunt. People always seem to notice something about him and don’t really look at him as a straight up caveman. There is a dark and ominous presence about him but it present a feeling of fear more than it does a feeling of disgust which might come with hime being totally barbaric. Although he does show barbaric traits, these are definitely not what he is completely about, because he always is trying to expand his reach and doesn’t seem to want to mingle with the towns people and seems to be very selecting with the people he decides to turn, especially in the case of Renfield. Renfield is definitely the sub-human character in the novel because he’s the one eating the insects and constantly trying to take the life from them. Dracula recognizes this and seems to not want to infect his own name with a vampire like Renfield. Overall, I agree that Dracula has some barbaric traits but that he also seems very cultured and and almost stuck up in how he lives.
I agree with you on your point about Dracula being a very primitive being. He is very selfish in the way the he hoards the gold and him having three wenches only adds to that. Although he is primitive in those aspects, Dracula chooses who he wants, he doesn’t just choose anyone. He is still charming to those he meets, take Harker for example, when he first meets Harker he is polite and seems somewhat caring but beneath this veneer he as ulterior motives that drive him.
The point you made comparing Dracula to Jekyll I found very interesting. Even though Jekyll did have a good side, his evil side was very similar to Dracula in the sense of him being cruel, barbaric, and violent. Although Mr. Hyde doesn’t go as far as hoarding gold and having multiple wenches by his side, he is just as primitive as Dracula.
One specific element of the supernatural theme that is present in Gothic Literature is the presence of characters who seem to be doomed or haunted souls. In Dracula, obviously the vampires are the ones whose souls are lost. We learn that they are banned from entering the gates of heaven, and any holy items have great power over the vampires. Once Lucy is transformed she becomes a damned soul, but fortunately through her destruction at the hands of her good friends, she is spared from a permanent ban from heaven, and presumably an eternity in hell. Count Dracula is the epitome of the damned soul, having lived as a vampire and working his evil over the course of centuries.
In Elizabeth Gaskell’s “The Old Nurse’s Story,” the theme of lost or somehow damaged souls is present as well. Miss Grace’s sister, the real Lady Furnivall, is another soul who should have gone on to the afterlife, which in Gothic Literature is nearly always the Christian heaven and hell, but she remains at the Furnivall Manor to haunt her sister for revenge. The ghost of her daughter usually carries out this torment, making all kinds of ghostly appearances and trying to lure the other young girl out into the snow to die as Lady Furnivall’s daughter did years ago. There is also the late Lord Furnivall, who makes his presence known through the ominous sounds of his organ on stormy winter nights. It is interesting that in both stories the doomed souls attempt to taint the undamaged or pure characters. Both Lucy and Mina in Dracula are two of the most loving and sweet woman anyone could come to know, and they become the first targets of the Count. In Gaskell’s story, it is not Miss Grace, the old bitter woman who is responsible for her sister’s ousting, but the young and innocent girl who is lured out into the harsh winter weather. The already corrupt souls trying to stain the pure characters in Gothic Literature seems to be part of this theme as well.
I completely agree with your interpretation of the doomed souls element present in both Lucy and Count Dracula. This gothic element is significant when one looks at the story to declare whether or not it should be categorized as gothic, so bringing it up was very smart on your part as it is essential to the genre. I also like how you discussed the functions of the doomed souls in Dracula. They most definitely do try to corrupt those who are good rather than evil and Lucy and Mina are excellent examples backing this argument.
Issues related to gender roles and gender relations are presented throughout Dracula. Van Helsing’s diary, especially, explains the events of the novel through this lens. He associates certain characteristics with men and others with women. He believes that it is the duty of the men of the story to eradicate the world of vampires simply because they are men and they must protect the weaker parts of society (women and children). He generally associates reason, intelligence, and diligent work/study with men. He says Mina has a “man’s brain” because of her talent in memory, dictating events, and organizing/orchestrating complex plans. Even in proving her ability in “manly” activities, she is still considered much weaker and easily victimized than her male counterparts. The men display themselves as selfless warriors who cannot be hurt even in their own death— the only way to hurt them is to hurt the women they care about. Lucy and Mina are used as leverage and instruments of “war” between Dracula and the vampire hunters. Despite the key role Mina plays in achieving victory over the vampires, in the end she is seen only as a possession that Dracula uses to hurt the “real protagonists” – the men of the story.
Mina, Lucy, and the female vampires, whether through their virtue or seductive powers, are portrayed as only weakening the men of the novel. The feelings that these females evoke in the men gets in the way of them doing what they know they need to do. All of the vampire hunters of the story speak very highly of Lucy and Mina, as if they view the women as idealized, pure beings (the way the men, especially Van Helsing talk of their duty towards these girls often reminds me of traditional knights/chivalry). But, on the other hand, the men are often concerned by the effect these women have on them. The seductive beauty of the female vampires causes hesitation in Van Helsing; he explains how difficult it was for him to do the right thing and destroy these monsters because of their female beauty. The fact that three of the vampire hunters were in love with Lucy brings about emotional weakness and makes it much more difficult for them to perform their task of destroying Dracula. While they are out investigating Dracula’s homes and forming their plan, they are forced to always be worried for Mina and dividing their focus because they feel she is unable to completely look out for herself. As is true in other gothic literature and most literature throughout history, females are males’ greatest weakness.
I completely agree with you on the fact that Mina has proven herself to have the mind/brain power of a man, but it still seen just as fragile as any other woman in her society. I kind of think that the men leaving her alone in the house, while they went off on their expeditions, wasn’t very smart on their part because it left Mina really vulnerable to the Count power and persuasion, and when they had found out from Renfield, it was too late to do anything because Dracula and Mina were connected. So in a sense, even though the men were worried about Mina, I can sort of see that as a slap in the face to Van Helsing and the others. Although Mina’s connection is what helped them to kill the Count, it put her at risk and danger of becoming a vampire herself, and leaving Harker heartbroken.
On that note, I had never thought of the women being the men’s greatest weaknesses (or instruments of war), but now that I think about it, it’s absolutely true. It does seems as though women are more commonly victimized than men in this novel because of their beauty and how it affects men, Most women of this day and age may not have the brute strength or intelligent minds as men, but they most certainly seem to be more powerful in an emotional kind of sense.
GothChat 
This middle portion of the novel mostly deals with the hunting of Dracula. In this process the reader may notice a few interesting portrayals of social class. By this point in the novel, there have been several encounters with the working class, but all seem to follow the same pattern. The worker in question is reticent or impudent until bribed either with alcohol or coin (presumably to purchase alcohol). This is the case with the zookeeper, earlier in the novel, as well as every worker Jonathan encounters while tracking Dracula’s boxes. The overall impression of the working class is that they are loud, rude drunkards who speak of “much blood and bloom” and are useless until bribed.
Conversely, none of the vampire hunting could be accomplished without money. Lord Godalming’s title opens doors (pun very, very intended) at the Piccadilly and with various solicitors and policemen. Jonathan’s constant bribery also nods to his own moderate wealth, even as a solicitor. All the members of this hunt have the ability to leave their jobs at any moment to run off to the continent to follow Dracula. This proves both the finances to accommodate travel and the willingness to suspend a salary that characterizes them all as well off.
The general effect of these social class descriptions, then, is that vampire hunting is not a working class activity. The chase itself requires money, but there is also a required nobility of spirit that is present in all our upper class characters and completely absent from the working class characters. While not unsurprising from a 19th century novel, it is always valuable to apply a socioeconomic lens to a reading to find greater cultural depth than may appear at one’s first reading.
I think you bring up a very good point about the focus on money throughout the novel and its connection to the characterization of both the upper and working class characters. It is interesting to see how others react to Lord Godalming’s title such as the example you gave at Piccadilly where Jonathan’s initial inquiries were quickly dismissed until the mention of Lord Godalming.
I also found it interesting that later on, Mina herself brings up the necessity of money in their tasks which definitely supports the theory that vampire hunting is only an activity for those belonging to the upper class. Mina comments on “the wonderful power of money” and is grateful that Lord Godalming and Mr. Morris are willing to spend their money so freely in order for their journeys to be started so quickly and so well equipped. Certainly, a lack of money would have made it impossible for them to pursue and catch up to Dracula. Even with all their resources, they all barely made it in time to kill Dracula before the sunset and another opportunity was lost.
Meanwhile, the members of the working class are held back by not only their lack of money, but also by their superstitions. This can be seen at the beginning of the novel when the villagers are too afraid of Dracula to fight back against him and even to properly warn Jonathan of the dangers he faces. Dracula preys on this weakness of the working class and because of this, has no reason to fear them. On the other hand, the educated upper class is better equipped to anticipate his movements and track him down, so once he realizes that this gang of vampire hunters is on to him, he flees and hastens to return to Transylvania.
After giving it a little thought, I agree with you completely. Throughout the novel, the five main guys, Van Helsing, Jonathan, Arthur, Quincy, and John, are valiant even when faced with the most heart aching struggles or abominable sights. From a romantic perspective, Arthur, Quincy, and John were all worthy of Lucy. The offer all they have when it is demanded. Similarly, Jonathan is worthy of Mina. Every upper-class character contributed all they could to fight Dracula.
The lower class people were always reluctant to help out. I think that this idea is more rounded in a “socioeconomic lens” as you said. From the lower-class worker’s perspectives, a wealthier man seeking answers from you might seem demeaning. One might ask himself, since when has Jonathan (representing wealthier people) ever wanted anything to do with me? Because the lower class workers of Eastern Europe have no knowledge of Dracula, how could they be sure that Jonathan isn’t merely exploiting their knowledge? They would have no way of knowing that their responses are being put to good use. In a more realistic mindset, Who wouldn’t ask for money? I would!
The upper class men definitely portray the idealistic ‘manliness’.
I squeamed a little bit when Mina used the word wonderful in praising “the wonderful power of money”. I suppose, really, it could be viewed simply as thankfulness for the means to complete the task in a society that limits some activities to the wealthy, but something about the context made me twinge. Probably because it came immediately after exalting the men in the group who are “earnest, and so true, and so brave”. The juxtaposition definitely felt like a hoity-toity “We’re of high caliber; and thank goodness we’re also rich”, with a lethargic, drawn-out goodness.
That reminds me also of the way the classes are separated by speech patterns. Besides “blood and bloom”, we’re treated to many dialects amongst working men, yet our team of vampire slayers (Van Helsing’s verb conjugation excepting) can’t be told apart in their use of spotless Queen’s English. I automatically read the protagonists’ words in received pronunciation. I wonder if that says something about me!
A main key concept that seems to be evident in my reading of Dracula and in Gothic Lit is shape shifting. Within shape shifting, characters seem to shift in aspects of physical transformation and/or the mental. The obvious example of physical shape shifting can be seen in the character of Lucy as she transforms into a vampire. Dr. Seward tells of the event in the churchyard in his diary when he states, “We all looked on in horrified amazement as we saw, when he stood back, the woman, with a corporeal body as real at that moment as our own, pass in through the interstice where scarce a knife-blade could have gone.” With new powers of being a vampire, Lucy gained the ability to shift shape into even the smallest of crevices.
Along with shape shifting but focusing more on the mental aspects of characters, instability of mental status is common. As seen more in some characters than others, the psychological state is easily accessible and controlled by some sort of outside evil force. In Dracula, the character’s mental states seem to grow strained and anxious after a visit from the monster. Directly after a supposed visit from the Count, Mina notes her surprising change of emotions when she says, “Oh, why did I ever go to Whitby? There now, crying again! I wonder what has come over me to-day. I must hide it from Jonathan, for if he knew that I had been crying twice in one morning—I, who never cried on my own account, and whom he has never caused to shed a tear…” Along with this statement but on a different mental spectrum, Renfield, a lunatic character whose mental state seems to always be changing, becomes extremely proper and seemingly sane after being visited by the Count. Renfield goes from fits of licking up Dr. Seward’s blood to stating proper speeches such as, “…If I may state my intellectual position I am, so far as concerns things purely terrestrial, somewhat in the position which Enoch occupied spiritually!” Dr. Seward even has to ask Renfield questions of the statement because he can’t seem to understand its perplexity himself.
The two points that you brought up are both really interesting. The concept of shape shifting in this novel is more of an external force, rather than an internal one. The characters are becoming “one” by blood transfusions and external forces such as that. You state two good points, but don’t really expand on the meanings of them. The mental states of the characters could be expanded on and also you could explain why the mental states of the characters correlate with the victims chosen by Dracula.
The mental states of the characters do diminish as the novel progresses and as the characters are exposed to more and more evil. A point that I think is really interesting is how Dracula chooses his candidates. The people who he seems to choose, have some mental instability. There has to be something “evil” inside of these candidates that attract Dracula to them. Overall, I agree with your two points that were made and I believe you used a good amount of direct quotes from the novel.
Hello Nick
I agree with you that shape shifting is a major part of Gothic Literature and Dracula. Not just the physical aspect of shape shifting but the mental aspect as well. As you said the physical aspects of shape shifting are seen through Lucy and Mina slowly transforming into vampires. It’s ironic that they must go through such an ugly transformation process in order to become more beautiful when they are dead creatures. Arthur himself says that she looked more beautiful than he had ever seen her as he stared at her lifeless body. We also see the shape shifting of Dracula when a transforms into a bat at various times throughout the novel and when he dresses up in Jonathans clothes to go and to village. These two forms of shape shifting are different in that one is used for an evolutionary advantage to help him hunt and kill while the other is a form of deception. Dracula wants to convince the villagers that Jonthan has left his home. Maybe he stole the screaming women’s child in Jonathan’s clothes and that is why when she sees Jonathan in the window she calls him a monster.
I also agree with you on the mental shape shifting of Reinfeld. There are times when he seems totally insane and possessed and other times when he is normal human. As you said when Reinfeld encounters Mina it seems to calm him and keep him sane, but when he was there under the watch of Dr. Seward it was if he was a monster. I also think that Dracula’s personality does some shape shifting. We see him as a very polite and calm man at the beginning of the novel when he is with Jonathan in his castle. There is something strange about him but nothing that would suggest that he is the monster that we know. By the end of the novel we see him truly become a monster. When he says, “’My revenge is just begun! I spread it over centuries, and time is on my side. Your girls that you all love are mine already; and through them you and others shall yet be mine – my creatures, to do my bidding and to be my jackals when I want to feed ‘” we truly get the sense that he is evil and not the calm and quite man he tries to show.
Your concept about the psychological state being easily accessible and controlled by some sort of outside force is a good point. Dracula does seem to cause question to a character’s mental stability after they are so fortunate as to have been visited by him. It seems that you believe Renfield is the most affected by Dracula when I disagree. I think Jonathan is the most affected since he in fact did experience the monster’s wrath head on under Dracula’s roof. Even though Jonathan did not lose his life to his oncoming insanity, he did become paranoid throughout the novel. Mina even notices his nervousness and she even goes so far as to read his journal to get a sense of what had taken over her husband’s mind. Jonathan seems to be the most affected in my opinion because he is also the one to overcome Dracula’s power of intimidation. At the end Harker is able to assist in killing the monstrous beast once and for all.
The shapeshifting idea is also a fair point that in Lucy’s transformation she goes from being like MIna, a fragile woman, to the three vampire women at the beginning of the story. Shapeshifting seems counteract the idea of Victorian women in this novel. Lucy goes from sweet to sultry, from innocent to evil. I think that shapeshifting in the sense of who Lucy was and who she became is also a good concept to bring up when talking about transformation in the story. Transformation and shape shifting seems to be ideal when also talking about the psychological state of Lucy at her time of release from being a vampire. Mina also goes through this change but her connection to Dracula ends up playing against him by the end of the novel.
During my reading of “Dracula,” a theme I keep seeing repeated over and over again is a constant reminder of the supernatural, superstition, and ultimately, new knowledge versus old knowledge. Naturally, Dracula is a supernatural being, a vampire, but there is also instances of animals such as wolves, bats, and dogs being controlled by an individual (Dracula), mysterious blue flames appearing, and superstition that can control these supernatural elements, for example, the garlic that seemingly repels vampires. Van Helsing is on the hunt for Dracula using knowledge gained from none other than superstition and folklore (“old knowledge”). Jonathan notices that the peasants in Transylvania display crucifixes and pray at shrines in attempts at warding off things he doesn’t understand at the time, like the evil eye and vampires.
The culture in which Jonathan resides rejects the “idolatrous” nature of crucifixes and religious iconography; he also views such superstition in such a way that it is something of a novelty, to be thought of as quaint and rustic, not something to be taken seriously. It is this very thinking that makes those in Whitby, where Dracula arrives to seek new victims, vulnerable to attack. Dracula is a supernatural creature whose existence it rooted in superstition; when one turns a blind eye to folk remedies and legend, it renders them incapable of mounting a defense. This struggle between new knowledge and old knowledge is showcased in the book. The message of the book seems to be: embrace new knowledge, but don’t forget the old because there are elements in the old that ring true and can still help. Van Helsing knew this, and was thus able to kill the vampires with the combination of crucifixes, garlic, and in knowing how to kill a vampire, as well as how to find them. It was how he knew that Lucy had become a vampire upon her death, and how he was able to help Mina fight against Dracula’s calls after she’d fallen victim to him. It was because of this old knowledge that she knew what to do to try and prevent further attacks.
Catherine,
I very much agree that it is this notion of “new knowledge,” or the up-to-date information of the modern world, which prevents Englishmen and women from seeing the threat of vampires. After all, people will see what they expect to see because otherwise their entire notion of reality might be altered. This blindness by preconceptions is exactly what lands Jonathan in his tight spot over in Castle Dracula and also what prevents Mina or any of the men vampire-hunters from catching on to what was happening with Lucy. Dracula certainly chose the ideal location to leech upon, considering the villagers back home were getting a tad agitated with him (refer back to the visit of the frenzied mother; imagine the day when all of the villagers rise up to avenge the murdered babies). It is only through the intervention of a foreigner who feels no superiority over other foreign customs (as Jonathan takes very little of what the Transylvanian villagers tell him seriously) that the Englishmen stand a chance against the threat of vampires.
That said, most of our protagonists are quite adaptable once they accept the doctrines of Van Helsing. He proves that the tools of superstition are rooted in some kind of truth, and thus proves that “old knowledge” is actually quite applicable. The men find themselves wielding both 19th century guns as well as ancient crucifixes—an image both literal and symbolic of their entire method throughout the novel.
Catherine,
I like the idea of you elaboration on the use of several type of knowledge thought the novel to give an in depth look as to how Van Helsing and the others we able to manipulate said knowledge given though folklore and mythology as well as the possible modern technology they used to eliminate Dracula. However, within your post I only had one issue about it. Though you brought up the concept of “new knowledge” as well as the old, you gave no examples of how this new knowledge was implemented thought the novel.
Granted it could be implied that this knowledge could be implemented due to the time differentiation between the time in which the mythology and the folklore about the creature was written and the time setting of the novel, that being several hundred years. With the improved technology in both medicine and weaponry, little else is mention to show extensively how old and new knowledge were simultaneously implemented other than the blood transfusions needed to keep Lucy alive. Overall it could be safe to assume that the villagers could have also use the combination of old and new in order to protect themselves, carrying modern weaponry while keeping faith in there holy symbols.
Hi Catherine,
I definitely agree with what you had to say about utilizing both old and new world knowledge. As you mentioned, using items from superstition and old world legend was essential in the defeat of the vampires. Van Helsing seemed to be the only person who used and was even open to the concept of old world knowledge. The only real answer I can give to why that is, is the fact that he is a foreigner. He does not have the closed mind of an Englishman, and because of that he is able to question things that others would usually disregard as mere coincidence or not of concern. It was he who identified what the vampires were, but he was not overly superstitious or overly confident with his knowledge. Van Helsing also used what you called new knowledge. He knew about blood transfusions and modern medicine and used it to his advantage to help his friends. It seems that old world knowledge was used more to the advantage of the hunters than new knowledge since it was the old that defeated the vampires in the end.
Hello Catherine,
In response to your posting dealing with old and new knowledge, I completely agree with your idea of meshing the two types of knowledge in order to be able to stay up to date with defeating the vampires. In an ever changing world, we as humans must adapt along with the times in order to survive. This also applies to Count Dracula who has evolved his way of life In order to stay alive, and thus the vampire hunters, lead by Van Helsing, had to manipulate there “tools of the trade” in order to be able to stay relevant. I agree with you that “old knowledge” is vey prevalent, as Van Helsing constantly demonstrates (i.e. decapitation and a stake through the heart), but I think you should elaborate more on your meaning of “new knowledge”. From my interpretation of your writing, I believe you are referring to measures such as the blood transfusions given to Lucy in order to keep her from dying at the hands (or fangs for that matter) of the count himself. If this is in fact what you are referring to, than I completely agree with you as this modern adaptation taken to save those targeted by Dracula, although in this case to no avail, was a brilliant way to stay relevant with the counts antics.
(This is a very general outline of my ideas — if there is interest, I may expand on them later)
Chosen themes: the anti-hero and shades of gray between life and death on the spectrum.
For me, the above two themes are those which may not always occur in combination when reading Gothic literature but that always capture my interest individually and especially when they connect. The gray-scale of life is a fairly obvious one with Dracula. We have the Count who is clearly ‘undead’ but who tries his best, so far as it will suit him, to behave as though he were alive. Then we have characters in various stages of Vampirism: Lucy, Mena, the insane man, the vampire wives, the children Lucy attacked, and (I suspect but have not finished the book) perhaps Van Helsing himself? He at least seems to know how to think like a vampire, if that counts.
Also, we have the anti-hero. Dr. Frankenstein and his monster are the classic example from Gothic literature, but we can also say that about Van Helsing and a very generous soul could say it about Dracula. Van Helsing because, although he is helping, he is taking nearly all of the glory, he is undeniably creepy, deceptive, and the neither the reader nor the characters know anything about him aside from what he does in the story (hence my suspicion from the above paragraph). Dracula, while having few redeeming qualities, does appear to have been somehow cursed, he is capable of (at least pretending) compassion and even in a house with three lascivious lady vamps he seems to be very lonely. It almost seems that he, like Frankenstein monster for example, was created by another will, has been rejected his entire (after)life, and it seems that he may genuinely wish to know love and acceptance but he is not capable of fighting his own nature, which is to spread the plague of vampirism and to kill for his own nourishment.
I love the idea of shades of grey in Dracula. From my perspective, shades of grey between life and death correspond with shades of grey between good and evil. Although in the novel there is a definite good and a definite evil, many characters blur the line. For example, Mina is a young woman who we as readers entirely trust. She is pure, intelligent, and has a maternal instinct to take care of everyone around her. But when the count attempts to change her, we don’t know what to think. Is she a vampire? She is obviously rejecting the evil that is trying to take her over.
As far as Van Helsing goes, however, I can’t say that I agree. In my opinion, Van Helsing is one of the few characters the characters as well as we as readers can trust. He does have a mysterious past of which we know very little about, but that doesn’t make him untrustworthy. All we know is that he’s Dutch, but has a German accent, he had a son who died but we’re not sure how, and his wife went insane after their son’s death but he refused to leave her saying “with my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone, even I, who am faithful husband to this now-no-wife …” But it’s true, we have no idea how he knows what he does about vampires.
Dracula (the character) is a barbaric creature, but is painted as such very deliberately. Stoker shows Dracula on multiple occasions as a hoarder, the piles of gold in his castle, the large bags of money he keeps on him for some reason etc.. He is not satisfied with just one woman, the civilized characters in the novel all have one woman, even though they all are kind enough to die for the sake of the plot. Even Van Helsing speaks of his dead wife to whom he is still married in the church’s eye, yet Dracula has three sexy vampire wenches at his castle, and he comes to England to steal their women. He is overbearingly possessive, wrathful, jealous and childlike in many ways. What struck me though, was how he seems to be painted as primitive. He is the “lord” of a primitive people (as Harker makes no bones about depicting them) from some shady little country in central Europe, far away from the good god-fearing British folk with their money not being greedily hoarded, and their monogamy. Short of giving him big hairy knuckles which he drags along the ground as he walks, Dracula is quite sub-human even by 19th century standards. This could be a bit of xenophobia on Stoker’s part, at least Jekyll had a good side which he tried to preserve, Dracula was a big scary foreigner with no trace of goodness about him. They do however, share the same trait of being representative of human primitiveness. They both have an appearance of wholesomeness, but under the mask they are base monsters, killing and coveting.
I agree with you that Dracula is definitely a barbaric creature in the novel, and is seen as greedy and never satisfied. I feel that Dracula is somewhat cultured and in some ways more advanced than other characters in the novel though. He is very primitive in the way he goes about what he does but there is also a sort of cloud around him which he seems to flaunt. People always seem to notice something about him and don’t really look at him as a straight up caveman. There is a dark and ominous presence about him but it present a feeling of fear more than it does a feeling of disgust which might come with hime being totally barbaric. Although he does show barbaric traits, these are definitely not what he is completely about, because he always is trying to expand his reach and doesn’t seem to want to mingle with the towns people and seems to be very selecting with the people he decides to turn, especially in the case of Renfield. Renfield is definitely the sub-human character in the novel because he’s the one eating the insects and constantly trying to take the life from them. Dracula recognizes this and seems to not want to infect his own name with a vampire like Renfield. Overall, I agree that Dracula has some barbaric traits but that he also seems very cultured and and almost stuck up in how he lives.
I agree with you on your point about Dracula being a very primitive being. He is very selfish in the way the he hoards the gold and him having three wenches only adds to that. Although he is primitive in those aspects, Dracula chooses who he wants, he doesn’t just choose anyone. He is still charming to those he meets, take Harker for example, when he first meets Harker he is polite and seems somewhat caring but beneath this veneer he as ulterior motives that drive him.
The point you made comparing Dracula to Jekyll I found very interesting. Even though Jekyll did have a good side, his evil side was very similar to Dracula in the sense of him being cruel, barbaric, and violent. Although Mr. Hyde doesn’t go as far as hoarding gold and having multiple wenches by his side, he is just as primitive as Dracula.
One specific element of the supernatural theme that is present in Gothic Literature is the presence of characters who seem to be doomed or haunted souls. In Dracula, obviously the vampires are the ones whose souls are lost. We learn that they are banned from entering the gates of heaven, and any holy items have great power over the vampires. Once Lucy is transformed she becomes a damned soul, but fortunately through her destruction at the hands of her good friends, she is spared from a permanent ban from heaven, and presumably an eternity in hell. Count Dracula is the epitome of the damned soul, having lived as a vampire and working his evil over the course of centuries.
In Elizabeth Gaskell’s “The Old Nurse’s Story,” the theme of lost or somehow damaged souls is present as well. Miss Grace’s sister, the real Lady Furnivall, is another soul who should have gone on to the afterlife, which in Gothic Literature is nearly always the Christian heaven and hell, but she remains at the Furnivall Manor to haunt her sister for revenge. The ghost of her daughter usually carries out this torment, making all kinds of ghostly appearances and trying to lure the other young girl out into the snow to die as Lady Furnivall’s daughter did years ago. There is also the late Lord Furnivall, who makes his presence known through the ominous sounds of his organ on stormy winter nights. It is interesting that in both stories the doomed souls attempt to taint the undamaged or pure characters. Both Lucy and Mina in Dracula are two of the most loving and sweet woman anyone could come to know, and they become the first targets of the Count. In Gaskell’s story, it is not Miss Grace, the old bitter woman who is responsible for her sister’s ousting, but the young and innocent girl who is lured out into the harsh winter weather. The already corrupt souls trying to stain the pure characters in Gothic Literature seems to be part of this theme as well.
I completely agree with your interpretation of the doomed souls element present in both Lucy and Count Dracula. This gothic element is significant when one looks at the story to declare whether or not it should be categorized as gothic, so bringing it up was very smart on your part as it is essential to the genre. I also like how you discussed the functions of the doomed souls in Dracula. They most definitely do try to corrupt those who are good rather than evil and Lucy and Mina are excellent examples backing this argument.
Issues related to gender roles and gender relations are presented throughout Dracula. Van Helsing’s diary, especially, explains the events of the novel through this lens. He associates certain characteristics with men and others with women. He believes that it is the duty of the men of the story to eradicate the world of vampires simply because they are men and they must protect the weaker parts of society (women and children). He generally associates reason, intelligence, and diligent work/study with men. He says Mina has a “man’s brain” because of her talent in memory, dictating events, and organizing/orchestrating complex plans. Even in proving her ability in “manly” activities, she is still considered much weaker and easily victimized than her male counterparts. The men display themselves as selfless warriors who cannot be hurt even in their own death— the only way to hurt them is to hurt the women they care about. Lucy and Mina are used as leverage and instruments of “war” between Dracula and the vampire hunters. Despite the key role Mina plays in achieving victory over the vampires, in the end she is seen only as a possession that Dracula uses to hurt the “real protagonists” – the men of the story.
Mina, Lucy, and the female vampires, whether through their virtue or seductive powers, are portrayed as only weakening the men of the novel. The feelings that these females evoke in the men gets in the way of them doing what they know they need to do. All of the vampire hunters of the story speak very highly of Lucy and Mina, as if they view the women as idealized, pure beings (the way the men, especially Van Helsing talk of their duty towards these girls often reminds me of traditional knights/chivalry). But, on the other hand, the men are often concerned by the effect these women have on them. The seductive beauty of the female vampires causes hesitation in Van Helsing; he explains how difficult it was for him to do the right thing and destroy these monsters because of their female beauty. The fact that three of the vampire hunters were in love with Lucy brings about emotional weakness and makes it much more difficult for them to perform their task of destroying Dracula. While they are out investigating Dracula’s homes and forming their plan, they are forced to always be worried for Mina and dividing their focus because they feel she is unable to completely look out for herself. As is true in other gothic literature and most literature throughout history, females are males’ greatest weakness.
Hi, Becky,
I completely agree with you on the fact that Mina has proven herself to have the mind/brain power of a man, but it still seen just as fragile as any other woman in her society. I kind of think that the men leaving her alone in the house, while they went off on their expeditions, wasn’t very smart on their part because it left Mina really vulnerable to the Count power and persuasion, and when they had found out from Renfield, it was too late to do anything because Dracula and Mina were connected. So in a sense, even though the men were worried about Mina, I can sort of see that as a slap in the face to Van Helsing and the others. Although Mina’s connection is what helped them to kill the Count, it put her at risk and danger of becoming a vampire herself, and leaving Harker heartbroken.
On that note, I had never thought of the women being the men’s greatest weaknesses (or instruments of war), but now that I think about it, it’s absolutely true. It does seems as though women are more commonly victimized than men in this novel because of their beauty and how it affects men, Most women of this day and age may not have the brute strength or intelligent minds as men, but they most certainly seem to be more powerful in an emotional kind of sense.