Dracula: Chapter 13

Last lesson we continued our reading of Dracula and discussed Chapter 13. We discussed a range of interesting topics including...the Victorian obsession with death and its links with beauty (and how that was explored through art and literature e.g. the references in chapter 13 to Lucy's 'enhanced loveliness' following 'death' and Dante Gabriel Rossetti's iconic painting of the drowning Ophelia) - we also spoke of the abundance of religious references in the chapter. What we discussed in the lesson certainly reinforced the idea presented by the York Notes text (that I spoke of a couple of blog posts back) about Dracula and Van Helsing working for 'higher powers'...with Dracula being a demon and Van Helsing being an 'angel of mercy'... the impression is given that VH believes in a higher power and a higher cause ('Her punishment will surely come, but not through me') and, in Chapter 13, with his continuous references to 'trust' and 'faith' e.t.c. it's almost as if VH is evolving into a religious figure...a preacher who is meant to be followed and trusted both by the characters and the readers. I can remember when I first read Van Helsing's 'speech' on 'you don't understand now but trust me and you'll thank me later...' e.t.c. I was pretty bored by it...but...I do now see the point...even if it does seem waffled (rather like my blog posts...) One last point on VH as a religious figure...after the crucifix was stolen from Lucy in the night, VH stays with Lucy (the following night) as if to protect her and the crucifix (protecting God's work...angel of mercy) - also...Mr Francis introduced us to the relgious themes surrounding Lucy also with her coming back to life as a sort of anti-Christ in that she is followed by the children but spreads evil as opposed to goodness...like Dracula, using her beautiful appearance and outer facade to trick people into a false sense of security as the 'bloofer lady'.

I think Chapter 13 is a really important chapter in terms of the character development of Van Helsing - he is presented, as I said, as someone to be trusted and who has the balance between logic/mysticism and compassion/bluntness just right - he appreciates the emotional link between Lucy and the men (and gives them time to mourn - gives Arthur time with Lucy) but at the same time doesn't shy away from doing what must be done (cutting her head off!). Character comparisons are also key in Chapter 13 - linking back to the exercise we did comparing VH and Dracula, I think the most striking links are found in Chapters 11, 12 and 13 as it's not so much about how they look that's similar/directly contrasting, it's what they DO...e.g. in Chapter 13, as we spoke about in class, when VH wishes to read Lucy's letters and diary entries, he waits to ask Arthur's permission whereas Dracula (the serial invader of privacy!) reads Harker's letters without permission...big charcter contrast there, linking back to past events AND increases the reader's feeling that they are invading privacy by reading the novel (letters and diary extracts) - also, to add to this...VH says of the diary entries 'no strange eye look through words into her soul' (what's more...the reference to the soul poses its own questions! Has she even got a soul anymore?!)

One quote that I think really defines the link between VH and Dracula...in Doctor Seward's diary it is written (about VH) 'I fear that the strain of the past week has broken down even his iron strength'...which I think is a direct link between VH's iron strength in terms of integrity and will power AND Dracula's physical 'iron strength'...introduces battle between mind and physical power...repetition of 'iron strength' used in reference to both characters really solidifies the concept of contrast between the two.

We spoke in Tuesday's lesson about how the sense of drama was created (with regard to Lucy's impending doom) and, after Lucy's 'death', this sense of drama is still maintained through constant references to te drak day to come ('there are stange and terrible days before us'). There's still an underlying layer of sexuality in Chapter 13, also...with the references to Lucy's 'enhanced loveliness' presented alongside 'together we moved over to the bed'. Also, in Mina's diary entry in Chapter 13, she desribes Dracula as having a 'hard, and cruel, and sensual' face...juxtaposition reflects Dracula's internal conflict between animal/human, dead/alive, cold/sensual.

Last point...in the lesson, we discussed the 'King Laugh' debacle and VH's hysteria...I interpret this as another attempt of VH's to explain to Seward (and the readers) that not everything can be explained logically or scientifically...sometimes there's no cause for King Laugh to be there, he just comes...for no reason. Reinforces the idea that VH is open-minded and although a scientist, understands the value of mysticism, nature and believing in the illogical or extraordinary. I do also think, however, that it is an outward show of hysteria in that the pieces of the puzzle are finally fitting into place (e.g. as VH refers to...when Arthur states the blood-giving made him feel like Lucy's wife...VH is linking this to Dracula as his beliefs...a normal man can feel the way Dracula does about the blood-giving)...also, I think it's hysteria on account of the fact that he's the one trying to keep it together and stay on task and professional despite having felt a direct attachment to Lucy also...outburst of grief (maybe he too felt like a husband of Lucy's after the blood-giving?! I think Seward did...only refers to Arthur's grief for his father initially, not for his grief for the loss of Lucy)

Chapters 10 and 11

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Character of Dracula & the Worst Essay I've Ever Written

Rather annoyed at myself after last lesson. Last Thursday, I spent my lunchtime looking over Dracula notes with Rosie so, during the first lesson we had that we spent discussing the character of Dracula as a class, I felt confident in what we were talking about but when it came to doing the timed essay on 'What strikes you about the character of Dracula?' I went completely blank and for some reason couldn't get what was in my head onto the page. Long story short...worst essay ever. I won't dwell on that any longer - needless to say I really need to brush up on my exam skills. Hopefully the revision I'm doing at the moment for the Lit re-take will help me out with that though.

Anyway - on to the specifics - the character of Dracula. Basically we talked about the different sides to Dracula's character - still the factor most fascinating to me is the overly friendly facade that the Count has to hide his beast-like side. We also talked about how Dracula's physical appearance holds significance with regard to giving an indication of character - apparently called 'phrenology' (relationship between facial features and character) - quite relevant when discussing Dracula as Harker is unnerved by the Count's manner and appearance even when he's supposedly acting like a human! I can remember writing in my essay about the fact that Dracula can't be pinned down in terms of physical form and whether dead/alive, asleep/awake which adds to the spookiness in that he could be anything, anywhere. The novel's structure reflects this as for a lot of the text, Dracula isn't actually present in his human form but his presense is felt throughout (through Lucy's illness, Renfield's behaviour, the dog arriving in Whitby e.t.c.) and hints are given that Dracula is around - increases the sense of the invisible trap falling down over Harker, Mina, Van Helsing e.t.c. Adds to the novel's drama as Van Helsing struggles to find a way to fight against something he can't define or even be sure is there. This links in with the queer theory idea that no-one should be labelled and the Victorian idea of individualism.

On Thursday, Rosie kindly let me look at her York Notes book on Dracula which I found really useful and have now got my own copy of. I was interested in certain aspects of Dracula's character that the text focused on e.g. Dracula using his sexuality and idea of 'love' to benefit himself and gain power...which got me thinking that Dracula is, in a way, a challenge to Victorian gender roles as, Dracula uses his sexual powers and version of 'love' to gain power in the way that a Victorian woman would have to do - as we learnt from studying Rossetti's poetry last year, in many ways, sexuality was the only currency with which a woman could deal in Victorian society. Dracula, in using his sexuality to gain power, is taking on the assumed Victorian female role.

The religious themes that the York Notes book brought into focus also intrigued me - for example, the idea that both Dracula and Van Helsing are both serving higher powers, with Dracula serving the devil and Van Helsing being like an angel of justice and mercy. This idea particularly interested me as we had worked, during the week, on comparing the two characters - the conclusion that I came to through doing that was that there were some distinct parallels between the two (in terms of similarities and differences) but the main difference between characters was that, even if they had something in common e.g. both are driven and determined...the motives behind actions and feelings were always very different, with Van Helsing always wanting to do something for the benefit of others and Dracula simply wanting to help himself. The York Notes idea that the two are working for higher power certainly adds an extra dimension to this observation and makes me understand the significance and symbolic nature of the two characters more.

Female Stereotypes and the Madonna/Whore Complex

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Focus on Chapter 5: Victorian Morality and Epistolary Form

Last lesson we dicussed Stoker's purpose in using letters within his novel but I won't talk about that seeing as we have to write a seperate paragraph or two about it anyway and have, I think, blogged about it before (back in the summer when my blogs made even less sense than they do now). So...the other major question of the lesson was how the victorian morality and sexuality that we had learnt about last week is presented in Chapter 5. To my mind, there's a very distinct change in voice between chapter 4 and chapter 5 as we go from reading Harker's journals to reading Mina and Lucy's letters as if Stoker was trying to emphasize the change from a male to female writers. Chapter 5 sees stereotypical traits of female speech and writing in use, for example, the 'I-can't-quite-think-of-a-single-word-so-I'll-bunch-a-few-together' style as seen in Mina's first letter ('two-pages-to-the-week-with-a-Sunday-squeezed-in-a-corner'), repetition of arguably phatic phrases such as 'Just fancy!' and repetition of words to highlight points ('Thanks, and thanks, and thanks again', 'really and truly'). It seems Stoker is exploring the idea of identity and gender stereotypes. Strangely, I'd always classed Lucy as the more stereotypically female character (as in more feminine and 'wife-like') so I'm glad we discussed this in class because I don't know why on earth I thought that! As Mr Francis said, there are hints at promiscuity and an attraction to the supposedly 'wrong' things in the characterisation of Lucy and although Mina's more 'modern' in the sense that she's independent and keeping up with technology (writing like 'lady journalists' and practising shorthand), she still fulfils the stereotypical female role of 'doting wife' more than Lucy does. So yes...that made me look at things differently...

The rigid social codes that we learnt about with regard to Victorian morality also crept in rather a lot, with the women referring to what they should and shouldn't do and say - motives explored through personal accounts of experiences. Also...I've finally been able to relate the 'Queer Theory' that we were asked to research to the text...the way Lucy tries and fails to categorise people reflects an idea integral to queer theory that people are individuals and shouldn't be categorised on account of gender, race, sexulaity e.t.c. ('It seems that a man always finds a girl alone. No, he doesn't'). Exploration of identity which was key to Victorian society.

Something which puzzled me during my first reading of Dracula which I've just been reminded of is the repeated references to Shakespeare - they start linking Harker to Hamlet and, as we discussed briefly in class, in chapter 5, Lucy writes 'I sympathise with poor Desdemona', a reference to the character who is attracted to the chequered past and danger of Othello and is eventually killed by her lover. I understand this link but might do a bit of resarch into why Stoker uses repeated links to Shakespearean characters (characters constantly relating their lives to fiction - blurring lines of reality?). This reference to Desdemona, can be interpreted as foreshadowing which we see more of in Chapter 5 - there's a sense of irony in the text that is detectable when reading for the second time - for example, Mina saying 'I shall be able to be useful to Jonathan' as, in hindsight, she really is...with her diaries that she ironically speaks of saying 'I do not suppose there will be much of interest to other people'.

I also just wanted to mention the sudden change in tone between the 'ladies letters' and Dr Seward's diary entries in chapter 5 and the argument that, being 'unrelated' should belong to a seperate chapter - I think that, by having Dr Seward's voice put in direct contrast to Mina and Lucy's, the reader is made aware of the fact that there are whole other stories going on behind the ones we are focused on e.g. Lucy presents Dr Seward as simply someone who proposes...but we are then given further insight into another side to him, a darker side (maybe a reflection of Dracula's dual personality) and this idea that the world is still turning and other things are going on even though we're focused on something else (Lucy's love life for most of Chapter 5) is a reminder that, while all is going on with Lucy and Mina in England...Jonathan is still out there and his story is continuing....causes reader to speculate.

One final thing - the more I read Dracula, the more I realise its subtlty it terms of hidden meanings e.g. I underlined Mina's talk of wanting to 'build castles in the air' simply because I thought it was an interesting meataphor but on a second reason I realised the significance of 'castles'...could it mean Mina wishes to build a picture in her mind of where Jonathan is (a castle!) or could it simply mean that she wants to dream of greater things...dream/fantasy.

Dracula in Context: Victorian Morality

Last lesson we talked about Victorian society and values and how this might relate to Stoker's Dracula. From what I've read, I gather that the novel was published and supposedly set in 1897, 60 years into Queen Victoria's 64 year reign. We discussed Victorian morality and religious values and it became apparent that, at the time Dracula was being written there was a great social shift going on in terms of the class system and morals which led to people questioning their place within society and their own identity could be defined. 'Individualist' ideas came into being as religious sects increased and the emergence of a middle class (and all the 'sub-classes' within that) meant social standing wasn't as clearly defined. As people started seraching for their own identity and for what their place within society was issues such as sexuality were confronted, with people looking to define themselves through personal traits, preferences and characteristics. Certain issues with regard to social standing and individualism are addressed in Dracula, with the two sides to the Count's personality reflecting the idea of 'de-evolution' (as Darwin's views were introduced into the social sphere people started to question identity and whether if people could evolve, they could de-evolve also) as although sometimes fulfilling the traditional gothic protagonist role of a rich, suave person of a high social standing, he could also be very beast-like.

Another contexual feature we spoke of that I thought could be clearly linked back to Dracula was the idea of 'prudery' and set rules of 'decency' surrounding sexuality - It seems as if there was rigid framework of ideas of what should be done and what shouldn't, with the 'language of flowers' and 'bathing machines' taking the idea of prudery to the extreme but there was also a backlash to this and, in a way, a hypocracy that meant these social codes were flauted even by Queen Victoria herself. This idea of an upper class 'it's improper to talk about certain things' facade, to me, reflects the fake image that the Count tries to present himself as - charming and dapper but behind the facade a very different being with animal qualities and a raw emotion.

The time in which Dracula is set is hugely important not only because it's written in a typically Victorian gothic style and is also set in the 1800s, but because there's a conflict within the novel in terms of history vs. the 'present day' (with the 'present day' in Dracula being the Victorian era). Transylvania is presented as a place where history is vitally important with superstitions and grudges between states and different nationalaties living on - Harker finds it difficult to adapt to this way of life, finding himself trapped in an old castle, and finds himself trying to fight against the Count's 'old ways' with modern technologies and quirks e.g. he feels safer when he has his lamp and tries to confuse the Count by writing in short-hand. Later in the novel, we see further examples of how the Count's ancient methods are counteracted with modern methods e.g. Van Helsing's blood transfusions. Interestingly, Van Helsing ends up fighting back against the Count with old methods as opposed to new ones e.g. the crucifixes and garlic as if, in a way that would be scary to a Victorian audience who were embracing new technologies, Dracula was unaffected by modern develpments and had to be met with superstitious (or what Harker refers to as 'idolatrous') practises in the hope of defeat. Harker's constant attempts to keep a logical outlook on things also outlines this battle between myth/reality and old/new, with Harker desperately trying to reason things out, for example, attributing strange occurences to him having fallen asleep and been dreaming.

Also...just want to make a note of the fact that in my re-reading, I've noticed the repetition of the Count's 'Is it not so?' which really messes with Harker's head...and that of the reader's as he, on a few occasions outlines how hospitable and (when he says it to the women) loving he has been before ending with 'Is it not so?' - Harker cannot argue that the Count has looked after him with regard to providing food and being polite which calls into question why he is so scared. Yes, the Count has kept up with the facade of being the good host very well but because he's been over-polite (he almost always addresses Harker as something along the lines of 'my good young friend') and because there's a underlying sinster side to him that keeps showing through, Harker (and the reader) become wary of him.

Lesson, Research and Reading Blog

We're getting well under way with the Dracula work now so I'm going to blog on some of the research I've done and my new thoughts after re-reading as well as what we've discussed in class.

I found last lesson really helpful as, having just finished re-reading the first section of the text, the discussions helped build upon my own thoughts. Dracula was the first of the gothic texts that I began reading in the Summer so, in a way, it was strange revisiting it as from classes and the reading of the other texts, I feel like I've learnt so much more about the gothic genre and can look at it from a different perspective. I also really enjoyed re-reading the opening chapters as, having read the novel in its entirety, I realised that certain descriptions carry a lot more meaning than I had first thought. My view towards the descriptions of settings, that I had previously found to be 'cinematic' (I'm really not a big fan of long-winded descriptions of settings), for example, I now think act as a sort of prologue. Although I agree with what was said in class with regard to the descriptions of settings being there to enhance the reader's ability to 'suspend disbelief' (verisimilitude), I think there's a metaphorical layer to the descriptions of setting and atmosphere also. For example, the 'shadows of the evening that began to creep around us' and the repeated references to things 'closing round on us from every side' could be seen to be foreshadowing the dark, shadowy nature of the Count's 'trap' in that he can never really be pinpointed but is a constant presense darkening the days and creeping up upon Lucy e.t.c. But rather than simply adding to the eerie setting, the descriptions can be deemed to be direct references to future events, for example, the coach rocking like 'a boat tossed on a stormy sea' could be a direct reference to future events in which Dracula travels to and from Whitby (particularly when travelling back to Transylvania when Lucy gets the visions of the boat).

In relation to the opening descriptions, in the lesson we talked about why making a piece of literature seem more 'real' enhances it...I won't spend too long on this topic as I think I blogged on the effectiveness of the epistolary style with regard to the gothic genre during my first reading of the text but...just to add to what I may (or may not) have already said...I think the fact that the novel is opened by the character of Harker is vitally important as he, through his descriptions, eases the reader into the mystical world, leading them to buy into the idea of Dracula and the superstitions of the Transylvanian people. In class we talked about how the extracts we were given of the opening descriptions (on the hand-out 'Verisimilitude in the opening of Dracula') became increasingly imaginative i.e. increased inclusion of figurature language, similes and metaphors. This steady journey from seemingly factual detail that the reader would be familiar with ('It takes a lot of water...to sweep the outside edge of a river clear') to more abstract description to describe things that the readers perhaps wouldn't be familiar with ('we passed a leiter-wagon-the ordinary peasant's cart-with its long snakelike vertebra') mirrors Harker's journey not only literally in terms of unknown land but also in terms of him becoming so emersed in the society that her starts to buy into and belief in their superstitions - Harker does attempt to hold onto his logical sensibility, reasoning things out (a key aspect of the gothic genre - logic and science vs. myth) BUT...as the audience is encouraged to do, can't help but 'suspend his disbelief' and believe in the myth saying 'It was within a few minutes of midnight. This gave me a sort of shock, for I suppose the general superstition about midnight was increased by my recent experiences. I waited with a sick feeling of suspense'. To summarise...I think the increasingly 'abstract' language used by Stoker in the opening descriptions of Harker's journey eases the reader in to 'suspend their disbelief' and buy into the mysticism in the same way that Harker does as he finds himself more and more emersed in Transylvanian culture. Quite a nice mirror...with the reader and Harker going on a journey together...empathy is set up.

Also...the fact that Harker describes things as if to a British audience e.g. describing Slovaks as 'Barbarian' (only 'Barbarian' by British standards) creates empathy and sets up a sense of familiarity. One last point about the journey from the 'normal' and the 'real' to the mythical...I think the way in which Stoker almost, in describing the people, uses stereotypes and stereotypes that the British readers would be familar with e.g. likening the peasants to those seen in 'old missals' makes the distinction between what's real and what's made-up less...distinct! Which in itself aids the reader's suspension of disbelief as Harker is basically saying 'You know the stereotypes that us English people have of Transylvania and the people living there? That's what it's really like' ... blurring lines between reality and fiction (seems to be what it's all about in the gothic). Through Harker, we get some (as mentioned before) seemingly factual descriptions initially...which don't detract from the reader's belief in Harker as the writer as he states he has researched before his trip...well...when I was doing my research on Transylvanian history, I discovered that Stoker never went to Transylvania and had only researched it himself therefore...he is basically writing what the findings of his research had been (elaborated on, obviously) and passing it off as the truth when, in actual fact, his research could have been made-up. Which makes the blurring lines of reality/fiction all the more confusing.

Speaking of research...I know it was our homework after this lesson to research Vlad the Impaler but I'd already done that as part of my 'History of Transylvania' research so I don't really want to blog about that for too long...all I shall say is...following my research I now sort of understand all the states and sections of Transylvania and what is now Romania better...the history is sort of explained by the Count in the novel but anything remotely to do with geography automatically confuses me so a bit of research has done me good. Also...with regard to Vlad...from my research, I've got the impression that although he may have been the inspiration for Dracula, seeing as Stoker had only heard the rumours and myths surrounding him and elaborated on them himself, they've ended up being far from the truth. Yes, Vlad seems to have been a rather bloody-thirsty ruler...but only in the metaphorical sense...NOT in the literal sense as Stoker would have us believe! Still, as we discussed with regard to 'versimilitude', the fact that it finds its roots in some sort of truth enhances the audience's ability to buy into the mythical side to it...linked to reality.

I know I had loads more to blog about but I fear I've gone on for too long already...final pointers though...1) I was surprised to discover that the superstitions spoken of in the opening of Dracula are still very much alive in Transylvania today...perhaps the superstitions were even fuelled by Stoker's writing!! 2) The 'Queer Theory' research interested me as I see how it can be related to Dracula...especially after reading the 'Vampires and Gender' article from the previous lesson so will have to bare those theories in mind when re-reading further 3) In my re-reading the repetition of words like 'seemed' and 'appeared' were even more obvious than they were the first time in re-enforcing the idea of blurred lines of reality/fiction...Harker's increasing fear and uncertainty.

Off to refresh my memory on Vlad, research into Victorian morality and keep on with the re-reading...if anyone's interested, one of the sites I used to research the history of Transylvania and Vlad was this one...http://dracula-transylvania.blogspot.com/ which is...Shock! Horror! Someone's blog! It's got bits of documentary footage within the project that helped me understand the context more...good stuff.

Lesson Blog: Vampires and Group Essays

On Tuesday's lesson we began looking into the contextual features that surround 'Dracula' by reading articles and blogs on the 'History of the Vampire' and 'Dracula and Gender'...one of the aspects that the 'History of the Vampire' article mentioned briefly was the link between vampires and humans...whether they're considered human or whether, as is the case with Stoker's Dracula, they are presented as the 'undead'. This confusion between dead/alive and human/beast really interests me as it seems to be a key aspect of the gothic genre - the fact that you can't actually pin down what the 'creature' is...it's sort of the same with Mephistopheles in Doctor Faustus...was he once human and like Faustus? Is he still human or does the fact that he's experienced hell change him into something other than a human? Are devils and vampires types of humans or different beings all together? Part of the reason Dracula is so creepy, I think, is the fact that he can't really be labelled and can go around without suspiscion because he is human-like and that when he takes the blood of others, they appear as they always were but are different...vampires! This element of deception with regard to appearances and facades seems to feature in a lot of gothic literature, enhancing the fear factor as it blurs the boundaries between reality and fiction. If one looks at the human/beast sides to Dracula's character, it's debatable as to whether he uses his human side to let his beast-like side win ultimately (by tricking people into feeling safe - as he seems to do with Jonathon initially) or whether he's trying to fight against his beast-like side by acting in such a refined human way some of the time.

The view towards vampires as humans seems to have changed over time - in the 'History of the Vampire' article, it states that early on 'some minor traditions believed in vampires that were living people' - in Stoker's Dracula, Van Helsing is keen to create the distinction between the humans and the 'undead' warning the men that go to Lucy's tomb that although very similar in appearance to how she was she is no longer the Lucy that they knew. I find it interesting that, in recent times, although vampires now are generally accepted as fictitious beings - they seem to be portrayed in a much more human way as if they're trying to be good and are fighting against their vampire-esque urges. Audiences and readers are almost meant to sympathise or empathise with a lot of modern vampires, seeing the more human side to them through their struggles and loneliness.

A quick detour back to Doctor Faustus now as on Thursday's lesson we were put into groups to write our essays on the protagonist - it was a really interesting and somewhat challenging experience as, as we'd all prepared to write our own essays, we'd all got set ideas of what we wanted to write and how we wanted to write it. Despite encountering inevitable difficulties during the writing process on account of clashing writing styles and the need to reach a consenus (sometimes we found it hard to agree on single words!), I was very pleased with the final result - a completely different essay in terms of content and style to how I would have written it alone, I found the way in which we were able to bat ideas around really helpful as you ended up with an insight not only into other people's views on the text but other people's writing styles. It's easy to get caught up with your own ideas and your own style and because the exam involves arguing different opinions and coming up with different theories, it's vitally important that ideas are shared between the group - I'm definately going to start reading more of other people's blogs as, through the group essay exercise, I've learnt how important being exposed to the writing styles and interpretations of others is. All that said - I haven't got round to writing the Faustus essay on my own yet and, to be perfectly honest, I'm dreading it - because I did have a set plan of my own essay in my head before Thursday and now the thoughts of what we put into our group essay, I'm rather confused...there are too many ideas of my own and other people's in my head right now and although, of course, that is essentially a good thing, it makes it pretty hard to formulate all of those ideas into one structured essay. But I guess that's the nature of English Lit for you! I'll just have to get my Faustus thinking cap on.

Lesson Blog: Vampires and Timed Essays

Holiday Blog

I won't waffle quite as much as I normally do as I'm still in the process of Faustus quote-learning but I just wanted to blog on a few things that the hand-out we got last lesson brought to my attention (the commentary on 'The Hero').

Reading the hand-out really helped me as it drew the same sort of conclusions that I'd been drawing...and blogging about, which was rather reassuring and also useful as it explained the ideas in a much clearer way than the way in which I've been trying to explain them!...I'm getting the ideas alright but I really need to work on exam skills. Anyway, there were a few ideas that the hand-out presented that were new to me and that I found quite interesting - I liked the way in which it linked the play to its context of reception referring to Faustus as a 'Renaissance man' and speaking of the significance of Wittenburg with regard to the Elizabethan audience - something I've been trying to do but, because I haven't researched the period fully yet, haven't really been able to do that well. Also found interesting the idea that Faustus recognises 'no boundaries to human endeavour' and that 'he uses his magical powers frivolously, for entertainment rather than social change' - the quotes I've being attempting to learn in preparation for the test certainly match up with that statement...for example, Faustus is easily talked into valuing the 'empty shows' that Mephistopheles brings...after the first show, F asks what its meaning is but after M says 'nothing but to delight thy mind', F seems content with that response and goes onto to say of the next show 'oh, this feeds my soul'.

Also...I know I have a tendency to go off on a tangent about the presentation of 'theatre' as a concept within Faustus...I won't go off on a tangent but a section of the handout did made me think about it again - according to the handout, part of Fasutus sinning is that he enjoys things such as the devil's 'shows' which are 'self-sufficient pleasures' (with no real meaning other than 'to delight thy mind') - if the hand-out is right in thinking that Marlowe was attempting to convey this message, he must have been confident in the fact that his 'show' did have meaning and depth to it and wasn't, like the handout says the devil's shows were intended as 'art-for-art's-sake'. Either that or...Marlowe is making an observation and joke of the fact that it is part of human nature just to want something to 'delight thy mind' occasionally...the people watching are watching theatre just as Faustus is watching the theatre of the devils.

A key feature of the conclusion of Faustus, I think, is the change that is seen in the title character - he goes from having such faith in and arrogance because of education and the knowledge that it has given him yet ends up blaming this education and wishing it away 'O would I had never seen Wittenburg, never read book!'...the fact that the hand-out explains the significance of Wittenburg (where the Reformation began) means I can make more sense of that line...however...I was wondering whether this is simply Fautus blaming anything and everything other than himself for his downfall...It seems strange that he would be saying, to a Protestant audience that he wishes he'd never been to Wittenburg...then again, I presume Wittenburg was simply a place of scholars. I'm going round in circles here a bit...I'll think that through and blog when I've made my mind up as to what I think!

After reading the final acts of the play again, I also began to think about how I'd stage it - although there are many elements that almost beg for a 'traditional' production, I think a more abstract, minimalist production would really hone in on the themes of the play with regard to mental and emotional issues (so the universal, timeless themes of the play live on and the dated Elizabethan 'quirks' are shed to avoid them being lost in translation) and cut down on the slapstick, gory side to it that, in a way, takes away from the play's real messages. I'll have a think on that one...the play and how it 'deserves' to be staged is a mass of contradictions, rather like Fautus himself...

Act 5 - Lesson Blog

In Act 5 - Scene One, the image of heaven/hell and God/the devil really come into play -there are, of course, references made prior to this point that they are polar opposites and, on account of that, do mirror each other in a way (for example, Mephistopheles speaks of praying to the prince of hell) - In this scene, as was discussed in class, there's the irony of the traitor (Faustus) repenting to the ultimate traitor (Lucifer) for considering repenting in the first place...oh what a tangled web we weave...it's all getting rather confusing...but my main point is that the clear parallels between Heaven/Hell and God/Lucifer are being shown - Marlowe's really hammering home his concept of those things in this scene and even has an old man randomly popping up as a type of God-like figure. Religious/moral themes at the fore-front keeping the play topical (especially to an Elizabethan audience)

It's an interesting scene because of the little details that make you think twice...for example, in saying 'I think my master means to die shortly', it made me question whether this was just a way of saying 'I think he's going to die shortly' or...as 'means' implies, if it's an indication of Faustus' controlling, power-hungry nature again in that he even wants to control life/death itself...he spoke of wanting to raise the dead initially but seeing as his plans are all going downhill and the magical powers aren't all they're cracked up to be...he's maybe downscaling his ambition...at least he can be in control of his own life. It's ironic that in doing what he thought would give him the power that he so desperately craved (signing his soul away), he sacrificed it all. Another part that made me think twice was the stage direction 'Mephistopheles gives him (Faustus) the dagger' (supposedly to kill himself with) - in this scene, we see a shift in Mephistopheles...he's playing up a bit, making a mock confession saying that Faustus' state is his fault ('I turned the leaves and led thine eye') and I questioned whether M really was willing F to kill himself (maybe so Lucifer could get full ownership of his soul...no danger of attempting repentence again) or whether he was just using reverse psychology. In saying he was the cause of F's state and supposedly urging F to commit suicide, he's almost taking what little power F has left...no control over his own life or destiny.

This scene reinforces previous ideas also...the fact that, just as M and the devils bring 'empty gifts' and 'hollow gestures', F and the scholars, when it comes down to it, only seem to want 'empty gifts' e.g. the 'image' of Helen. The moral issues are also reiterated with Mephistopheles giving an indication of his value of the soul and the importance faith/God has in protecting the soul ('His faith is great. I cannot touch his soul') Also...I finally found the quote I've been trying to find for ages (I mentioned it in my previous blogs when speaking of Mephistopheles)...the old man says 'No mortal can express the pains of hell'...as I've stated before...through M, Marlowe tries.

A change can be noticed in Faustus - it's almost as if he is now experiencing the hell that M described to him earlier - as opposed to before, he accepts hell and doesn't question it ('...with greatest torment that our hell afforded') He's in a horrible place mentally - making enemies of the devil and God - even everything that seems good to him is sourced from evil e.g. Helen - As Mephistopheles says 'His store of pleasures must be sourced with pain'...A really important chunk of act 5, scene two is Mephistopheles' speech summing up F to Lucifer as it bascically reiterates the point about his 'idle fantasies' and how much trouble they've got him into. The Bad Angel exposes itself as a false friend (a point the Third Scholar later confirms 'The devils whom Faustus served have torn him thus') 'Gave ear to me/And now must taste hell's pains perpetually' and, upon the Good Angel's exit from Act 5, Scene 2, the goodness from F's life is lost. Faustus shows how he is in tune with the Bad Angel when he continues its rhyme ('Thou shalt see/Ten thousand tortures that more horrid be'...'O! I have seen enough to torture me!') Also, Faustus who had taken great pride in the knowledge he had got from his books now blames them ('O, would I had never seen Wittenburg, never read book!' and later goes on to say 'I'll burn my books' at the end of the scene.


We didn't talk about this in class but I think Marlowe's portrayal of 'scholars' is quite interesting, especially in this scene - he seems to slate scholars for their ambition (Faustus' ambition...sparked by his reading and studying of books) yet makes those who aren't scholars fools! Like I said in my last blog, I think characters like Benvolio are the 'human' characters and, in a way, the scholars are presented as having their humanity and restraint taken away from them on account of their studies - maybe arrogance and a desire to know even more sets them apart from the others...I haven't quite made my mind up yet! There's certainly a divide between the scholars and everyone else and, while the scholars support Fasutus in his magic, the 'others' don't...as if Marlowe's trying to make the point that, even the peasants, even the fools can see that what Faustus is doing is wrong.

That's enough incoherent blogging for one day...if anyone does actually read this, I'm sorry it's made no sense...these few scenes, to me, have been the most interesting yet so it's been difficult documenting my thoughts...as is evident in the shotgun approach to blogging today...let's just say I've flitted from one idea to the next as quickly as Faustus flits between God and the Devil in Act 5 and, like Faustus...it's all going downhill!!

Next 2 Scenes...

Mr Francis was off last lesson and we were asked to read the next two scenes...so I thought I'd blog on them.

Act Four, Scene Three - Again in this scene, there's the potential for comedy but also for a serious slant to be put on the scene if desired - if played for laughs, Benvolio, Frederick and Martino realising they have horns on their heads could be quite comical on account of their confusion and unawareness of their own horns ('It is your own you mean. Feel on your head') however, the serious side to scene is that, as Martino said, they have been through a terrible ordeal on account of Fasutus' immense pride having been dented ('the Furies dragged me by the heels') - they've been shamed even more than before - the shame of having horns on his head in the first place led Benvolio to attempt the murder of Faustus...and now it's even worse! His increased sense of shame only adds to his desire for revenge and the audience are left wondering as to what on earth he will do next...the fantastic rhyme at the end of the scene consolidates Benvolio's determination 'Sith black disgrace hath thus eclipsed our fame, We'll rather die with grief than live with shame' In many respects, Benvolio can be viewed as one of the only 'human' characters in Doctor Faustus to be empathised with by the audience - Mephistopheles can only be empathised with to a certain extent as the audience can't relate to his experience of hell and Faustus almost verges on a potrait of an extreme human being...wild ambition, undying pride and a desire for power so strong that he will sell his soul to the devil in pursuit of his goal. Benvolio, like Fasutus, acts because of his pride but a pride that the audience can respect - a pride to protect the honour of himself and his wife (the horns symbolise her infidelity - thus, her shame as well as his) and, as most audience members would do, initially doubts the power of magic - condeming it as work of the devil. Benvolio, despite associating with 'comic characters' is to my mind a very human character - perhaps the most realistic of them all - behaving in the way probably a lot of ordinary people would if they were placed into the world and story of Doctor Faustus. On account of his views (protecting honour, condeming Faustus' magical practises), Benvolio would probably gain quite a lot of respect from the audience...despite having horns on his head!

Act 4, Scene 4 - To me, this scene again is humourous BUT has a clear purpose and serious message in terms of human nature. On my first reading of Doctor Faustus, I noted in my text the the fact that Faustus knows the horse-courser will take the horse in water despite being told not to in the same way that the husband in The Bloody Chamber's title story knew that his wife would use the key to open the door to the Bloody Chamber despite being told not to - human nature - temptation. This scene is quite important, I think, because Faustus knows what the horse-courser is going to do not because he controls him using magic but because he has an understanding of human nature and the way the mind works - can trick the horse-courser psychologically - scary in the sense that he doesn't use a supernatural power but can still control - key trait of many a Gothic protagonist. There is also a show of his magical powers and trickery (the horse turns to hay) but...F doesn't use magic to make the horse-courser go in the water. Shows Faustus to be a con artist, exploiting humn nature to benefit himself - just gets money though had wanted a lot more than that - powers aren't all they're cracked up to be. Also...Faustus sleeps ('confound these passions with quiet sleep') as if to make his troubles go away - asleep/awake link to Gothic literature.

Thoughts on the false head...and a few other things

The last thing we discussed in the lesson was the false head that features in Act4, Scene 2 so that is what I shall begin with...we talked about different ways that Faustus having his head cut off could be realised on stage. When I first read the scene, I did picture an actual false head being cut off in a rather bizarre and comical way (I think I may have blogged during the Summer about finding the stage direction 'enter Faustus with the false head' amusing) and although it would make sense for the audience to be in on the joke (in that they know that Faustus has a fake head...it would certainly make the staging easier as efforts wouldn't have to be made to make the false head so realistic that the audience buys into the idea that it is Faustus' real head), there are other ways of doing it that would set a more serious tone - of course the way it's done would depend on how the play has been pitched by the director regarding the comical/serious balance spoken of in my last blog. One way of staging this scene that I think would be quite symbolic is if Faustus appears only behind a curtain or screen...so only his shadow is seen...this would make the actual cutting-off-of-the-head easier from a stagecraft perspective and, I think, would be a good way of setting a serious tone...Martino, Benvolio and Frederick could be seen in front of the curtain/screen as in lurking and waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting Faustus (it does say that they intend to hide behind trees) AND in having the head-cutting-off action done in shadows/silhouettes, it would almost be as if Benvolio is fighting the the very part of Faustus that he detests...the fact he, through magic, is just an illusion...a 'show' like the characters he puts before the Emperor - the shadow of Faustus is a trick, it's not really him, it's not really his head but neither Benvolio nor the audience would know this at first but the shadow/silhouette style would symbolise the Faustus' trickery and magic.

Another thing I wanted to pick up on...in my last blog, I said I thought I was going off on a tangent about how everything is theatre but actually...I don't think I was digressing at all really. In the section that we read today, there was another example of how Marlowe, through his work (as Shakespeare does) glorifies the art form of theatre by having a 'play within a play'...with reagrd to the 'show' put on by Faustus for the Emperor.

One major thing that I picked up from today's lesson was the questioning of Faustus' motives (and indeed those of Benvolio) - Benvolio says 'Take you the wealth; leave us the victory' which gives the impression that he acts only because of pride as opposed to greed (he wants to get revenge and clear both his name as well as his wife's) and thinks Faustus is only concerned with money. Although initially it may seem that Fasutus IS only motivated by a desire and greed - for power, money and fame - it can be argued that, like Benvolio, he only acts (giving Benvolio the horns) because his pride has been dented - Benvolio doubts Faustus and Faustus wants, not only to prove him wrong but to punish him for speaking ill of him. In this sense, both Benvolio and Faustus, despite their differences have the same motives and, in that, display quite a common human instinct - to protect your honour.

I found the pointers about the play's structure with regard to prose/blank verse interesting and think that one of the key things that that does (in the section we read) is that it emphasizes the fact that Faustus doesn't know what he wants - he had said that he wanted Emperors to serve him, yet he speaks in blank verse to the Emperor (most of the time) as if grovelling and wanting to serve him (it's like when he speaks of wanting immense power and then when he has the opportunity to ask Mephistopheles for anything, simply asks for a wife) Faustus is confused as to what he wants and it's almost as if he can't live up to his own expectations and dreams - he thinks big (as was demonstrated in his opening soliloquy) BUT when it comes down to it, he only seems to work towards things that can be achieved without magic.

Serious/Funny in Act 3, Scenes 2 and 3

I missed the last two lessons because I've been ill so this isn't exactly a lesson blog but...in my attempts to catch-up with the work I've missed, I'm going to blog on the topic I've been reliably informed you discussed last lesson - the link between the serious and humourous themes in Act 3, Scenes 2 and 3.

As I've spoken about before in past blogs, to my mind, Doctor Faustus is quite a visual, physical play that I don't think you'd get the full impact of it without actually seeing - there are aspects that would obviously be physically funny for example, Dick riding on Robin's back as they exit Scene 3 and the transformations into apes and dogs. To a certain extent, I think an element of slapstick physical comedy was expected in Elizabethan theatre, however, coming on to the serious side to the comedy, I think there is a point. The frivolity and stupidity of magic and all it entails is brought up on numerous occasions throughout the play and I think the fact that magic can have such 'silly' consequences (turning people into dogs and apes) re-emphasizes the idea that magic is full of 'empty gestures' and 'hollow gifts' like we were talking about with regard to Mephistopheles...'Nothing...but to delight thy mind'. And in a way...the physical comedy does delight the mind of the audience - just as Faustus is treated to 'shows' e.g. the 7 Deadly Sins display, the audience watching Doctor Fasutus will want to see a bit of spectacle. It's nothingness really but it does 'delight the mind' in that it's interesting/funny to watch - the physical humour involved in Act 3, Scenes 2 and 3 is, in this sense, not mere slapstick but a reflection of the shows of magic put on for Faustus. Lucifer says 'Mark the show' in reference to the 7 Deadly Sins display...it's all theatre...in the words of Shakespeare...'all the world's a stage'. I think I might be digressing slightly...

Onto the 'serious' side - the rhyming of the magic spells make them sound slightly menacing ('With magic spells so compass thee/That no eye may thy body see'). In Act 3, Scene 2 - we see Faustus greed again (admittedly on a smaller scale) in that he's snatching meat and dishes from the Pope - this would be humourous to a Protestant audience, not only because it's topical but also because it would probably still have been a taboo subject. Yes, Faustus' greed is watered down to a level of 'mischief' but he's still making a nuisance of himself - the fact that we can laugh at Mephistopheles disrespecting the Pope and causing confusion says something about human nature - his bad qualities can be criticized one minute and laughed at the next - all because the plots become 'mischief' and the victim becomes the Pope. Rhyming I'd normally expect to go hand in hand with humour, however in these scenes, I think the rhyme is used to highlight severity as opposed to folly...the spells as mentioned before and the re-emphasizing of Faustus' doom (Faustus may say it in a mocking may but...the rhyming does sort of make it more ominous...Faustus still not afraid despite knowing fate...serious) 'Bell, book and candle; candle, book and bell,/Forward and backward to curse Faustus to hell' ... the Pope and the Friars don't take kindly to Faustus' mischief and whereas it's all a joke to him...they 'curse' the one who hits the Pope and steals the meat e.t.c. In other words what Faustus thinks is funny has serious repercussions...theme of the play.

Act 3, Scene 3 has the physical humour I was speaking of early as well as the two comic characters of Robin and Dick...the clowns...the ones that make me think Marlowe was just sort of ticking a box with regard to the crowd-pleasing comic characters to lighten the mood every so often. There are humourous lines alongside the physical comedy ('We look not like cup-stealers, I can tell you') - great potential for comedy but...the underlying meaning behind the comedy that I mentioned before is still there. In a way, Scene 2 and 3 are opposites - in Scene 2 it is Faustus who is making mischief and testing his new powers afforded to him by Mephistopheles and is 'cursed' by the Friars who deem his deeds to be going against God...but in Scene 3, it is Dick and Robin who are making the mischief - trying to conjure a devil...in this instance, it's not those associated with God that curse him but Mephistopheles for misusing magic and wasting his time - he turns the two into animals 'to purge the rashness of this cursed deed' - the underlying serious message behind the humour is that if you meddle with something you don't know much about - in this case magic - with the incentive to cause mayhem or mischief...you'll offend someone or another - be it the devil or God. This balance between the 'powers' of the devil and God are a serious theme in the play, I think as Faustus ultimately gets himself in the bad books of God and the devil...got to be careful who you're upsetting and whose side you're on!!

Also...my correct Doctor Faustus text STILL hasn't come through...surprise, surprise...I hate Waterstones. And I've done the essay that I missed but to be honest, I think I explained the points I was trying to make better in my past blog posts so...yey for the blog.

More Mephistopheles...

The more I think about it, the more I think Mephistopheles is there to highlight quite how devilish and wildly fearless and ambitious Faustus is...the way Mephistopheles is scared of the way Faustus talks about (and dismisses) God and the way he talks in such a nonchalant way about the devil and what the devil can do.

A subject that we spoke about last lesson that interested me was the idea of Mephistopheles and his hollow gifts (the 'shows' with the 7 deadly sins, for example) - I think this concept embodies an idea Marlowe was attempting to convey with regard to the fact all Faustus wants is 'nothingness' - it's shallow in a way and unattainable...he wants everything...and because everything is infinite, he doesn't really know what he wants - he's never truly satisfied - early on, we found that, despite being able to cure people's illnesses, he wasn't satisfied as he couldn't raise the dead and this idea of an insatiable desire for 'everything' is reaffirmed when Faustus is presented with the 'magic book' and basically asks 'is this it?'. In stark contrast to this, I think Mephistopheles words (most of the time) are anything but hollow (admittedly he does make meaningless, intentionally ambiguous conversation with Faustus with regard to the planets and stars e.t.c but that's because he doesn't want to give him the gift of knowledge...and perhaps doesn't know the answers himself!) I think there's a real truth to Faustus - what he says about hell and his fear of Faustus' blasé attitude towards the devil and to God seem genuine...as I've mentioned in past blogs, I think he's quite a tormented character - he is, after all, a person who has experienced hell - he was perhaps like Faustus but has learnt his lesson the hard way (by going to hell) - in that sense I feel quite sorry for him and although, in a way, he's tormenting Faustus, I think he's quite pleased that he's got some company. As part of the research I did on the production history of Faustus, I found pictures of Mephistopheles as represented by puppets (as spoken of in my last blog) and by people and the image I have in my head of the character is a real person...a tormented, broken down shell of a person, filled with the knowledge of horrors beyond the bounds of Faustus' and probably any human's comprehension - ironically, I think M has what F wants (or at least thinks he wants) - knowledge...a boundless knowledge of heaven and hell (hell in that he's known and lost heaven).

As for the new copy of Doctor Faustus...since the last lesson, I've been in Waterstones twice and have been told that, according to the database, they should have 6 copies in store but having 'searched the shop' they can't find any of them...rather frustrating : I've ordered one but they said it could take up to 3 weeks.

History of the Production and Mephistopheles Discussion

In the lesson we spoke about the character of Mephistopheles; audience expectations of a devil (trickster, shape-shifter, liar), his character traits and messages e.t.c. Two words that stick in my mind when thinking about M are 'tormented' and 'deprived' and, I have to admit, I do sympathise with him a tiny bit when he's talking about hell being to have known and lost what heaven is. Firstly, I think that's a wonderful way to describe hell - In the play, someone (I can't quite remember who!) refers to the fact that you can't know or describe hell until you've been there...yet Marlowe attempts this through Mephistopheles. Mephistopheles, I think, is an interesting character because he can be compared to Faustus (almost like a foil) ... One could argue that Faustus lives up to audience expectations of a devil more than Mephistopheles as, at least M values souls, seems to have learnt his lesson and is, in a way God/Devil-fearing in a way that Faustus is not ('O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands/Which strike a terror to my fainting soul!'

A couple of things that got me thinking when we read through the opening scenes...when Faustus' blood congeals, it's almost a signal that his body is urging him not to continue with the contract (signing his soul to Lucifer) - as if his body is God's and God is urging him not to continue but his free will that is, according to the Bible, his own allows him to continue with the deal. Also, the fact that Mephistopheles fetches fire to dissolve the blood is interesting as it brings in the 'traditional' image of hell...fire, flames e.t.c. as if the fire (the product of hell) is destroying Faustus' God-given life force.

Something else that dawned on me when we were reading was that, the fact that Faustus is constantly trying to work things out logically and rationally is just like it is in Dracula and The Bloody Chamber - a key gothic theme. Although Faustus chooses to believe in magic and devils e.t.c. he dismisses ideas that he doesn't want to be true, finding logical solutions as to why they cannot be (when he thinks he sees the warning written on his arm, he says 'My senses are deceived; here's nothing writ'.

I also just wanted to blog about some of the things I found out about the history of the production seeing as we didn't really discuss it in class - I discovered there have been 49 amateur productions, 54 professional productions, 4 film productions (one of which stars Elizabeth Taylor as Helen of Troy) and, suprisingly 14 radio productions (to me, it seems quite a visual play) I was also interested to find that in an RSC production of Doctor Faustus (where Ian McKellen made his RSC debut in the title role) puppets were used for the good and bad angels and life-size puppets were used to portray the seven deadly sins! Even Helen of Troy was a puppet! It seems that puppets have been used in one way or another in a few of the productions.

I also found out that between 1594 and 1597, the play was featured in the repertoire of Lord Admiral's Men (a drama society) and was performed at the Rose Theatre...this was at the same time that Shakespeare was writing plays to be performed at there - 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Romeo and Juliet'. Also...from one extreme to the other, I discovered that there's been a musical adaptation of Doctor Fautus called 'Doctor Foster' which involves the modern female equivalent to Doctor Faustus buying a spellbook on eBay!!

Doctor Faustus...Lesson Blog

One of the first things we dicussed last lesson was theatre (seeing as Doctor Faustus is a play!) and, for fear of waffling on, I'll make a conscious effort to keep this short...theatre is my very favourite art form...of them all. Ok - maybe I need to justify that a little bit. With theatre, you are there...in that moment, in that scene, with those people. No performance is ever exactly the same which, I think, is why each theatre-going experience is so special...and why I go and see some of the same shows repeatedly. Theatre and the gothic genre almost go hand in hand because in theatre, you are watching real people (admittedly playing roles) in the way that you could watch people in 'everyday life' (who, most of the time, aren't playing roles) therefore the bounds between reality and fiction are blurred (a key element to the gothic). Also, I think the gothic genre is about personal experiences - especially when it comes down to the psychological impact that the gothic genre has and there is, a lot of the time, an element of mystery and intrigue...theatre, unlike cinema, I think is a very personal experience - you can look where you want to look, at who you want to look at as opposed to being forced to look at one person or one thing on account of a camera shot...this gives a lot of freedom and allows the audience to work things out for themselves without being directed (as obviously as in film) making the 'piecing together of the mystery' all the more enjoyable.

We spoke also, in the last lesson and the lesson before about the character of Faustus - what opinions we have on him, what his personality traits are, what his motives and dreams are. The lesson before last, I questioned whether Faustus was simply arrogant or whether some of his faith in the potential and power that knowledge and learning offers was being misconstrued as arrogance...now I think he actually is just arrogant! Ok...I do think he values greatly what education can offer him (and what power it can give to him) but I also think that he's just plain arrogant...and, in some ways, for good reason...the point that he is intelligent is repeatedly emphasized and his friends Valdes and Cornelius do little to suppress his mighty ego and ambition ('Faustus, these books, thy wit, and our experience/Shall make all nations to canonize us'. Another thing I intend to refer to in my essay plan is the fact that, although he goes along with Valdes and Cornelius as if he's a member of a team, when they're not there it's all about him and he seems to be out for himself...which gives a huge insight into his personality - the way characters are during their soliloquies and solo moments in contrast to how they are when they are alongside other characters always fascinates me...that's where you get a glimpse of the multi-dimensional nature of characters...how they are on their own/how they change when other people are there.

Going back to how Doctor Faustus works well as a stage play...I think I spoke in one of my first blogs on the texts about the scenes that would be very interesting to see realised on stage...I'll check to see if I did talk about that...if I didn't...I've still got a bit more theatre-related waffle to blog about! To my mind, Doctor Faustus is one of those plays that you have to actually see to get the full impact of...there are scenes that aren't that impressive or thought-provoking to read that could be amazing on stage...which really is the mark of a good play...although it is very well written...it's written with a purpose behind it that can only be exposed when it's consumed in its intended form...theatre!!

''Doctor Faustus'' - Class Discussion

Something I think our last lesson indicated was that religious issues are still a talking point today. Although views have changed since Marlowe’s day (if anything, people in England now are presumed to be atheists unless they tell you otherwise) from our discussion in class, I got the impression that the people who didn’t believe in God and souls and the things we were talking about were quite passionate about the fact that they didn’t believe and were confident in their views. I thought it was quite interesting how strongly people don’t believe and if you look at the context in which Doctor Faustus was written, questioning religion, in the way that we were able to do in class, would have been quite daring and unusual. Basing a play on religious themes is probably, in many ways, a sure-fire debate-starter and is sure to provoke a strong audience reaction as even at a time when religion isn’t perhaps as important to as many people as it once was, everyone has their own opinions and some response to it. Religion is something that you can’t really get away from and in order to either believe or not believe or have a faith, one must have weighed up the ‘facts’…in the way that Doctor Faustus weighs up the facts in his opening soliloquy. One thing I love about this soliloquy is the fact that, true to the gothic genre, it’s steeped in history and has many cultural references (which are interesting and somewhat confusing at first, seeing as they’re old cultural references!)

Finished Doctor Faustus...

Well...as the title indicates, I've finished reading Doctor Faustus (hopefully the correct version!) It sort of lived up to the expectations I spoke of last time, though it wasn't quite as dark as I was expecting it to be and found that some of the more gruesome moments were tinged with humour which lessened their dramatic impact somewhat (for example, when Faustus rises after having his head cut off, Frederick says 'Give him his head for God's sake!'...whether Marlowe's intention was to make the situation humourous, I am unaware and although the scene could be acted deadly seriously, the fact that it's so far-fetched and over-dramatic, to me, makes it humourous. I realise that there were moments when humour was obviously intended as Robin, Dick and the Horse-Courser could be deemed to be comic characters but seeing as I was expecting a dark gothic novel, I found it rather strange that there was so much comedy within it.

Robin and Dick are characters that I wanted to discuss actually as they seem to be the 'jokers' of the piece (Robin, for example, is the clown) and are almost put into the 'uneducated' bracket - on the other end of the scale the 'scholars' that are in the play are criticised somewhat by Marlowe for buying into Faustus' schemes and his magic - With the scholars being criticised for being over-ambitious to teh point of going against God and the 'uneducated' characters being presented as the fools, I'll be interested to find out about Marlowe's background and circumstances regarding education.

One thing that struck me about Doctor Faustus was that it really would be an excellent piece of theatre - and something that I'd be really keen to see it the form that was intended. Marlowe has written into Doctor Faustus so many visual elements that would be interesting to see realised on stage and that would be really dramatic...for example, the thunder and lightning when the devils enter, the changing shapes of the devils, the portrayal of the seven deadly sins and the transformation of the characters (who are turned into dogs, are given horns e.t.c.)...not to mention when Faustus' head and then one of his legs are cut off only to grow back (I had to laugh at the stage direction 'enter Faustus with the false head' as if Marlowe was making doubly sure that everyone knew the actor's head wasn't really to be cut off!) Something I love about plays of this period is that they are clearly written with the audience and the masses in mind, for example, the foreign settings would have been of interest to the people (as of course the religious subject matter would have been also) and the art form of theatre itself is glorified ('Then in this how let me an actor be'). Reading Doctor Faustus has made me think that the gothic genre is a good one to be presented through the medium of theatre as the whole 'is it real?/is it not real?' debate that the gothic genre often throws up is encapsulated in the theatre going experience...the devil spirits that are brought about are no more real than the other characters, for example. It's all a show, it's all theatre...though when you see something with your own eyes, it's difficult to deny the truth of it.

A link between Dracula and Doctor Faustus is the idea of the soul. I've spent a while trying to work out what I think 'the soul' actually is...and it seems to be the spiritual element to ones self...the essense of being, almost. As you can gather...I've found it difficult to describe what I imagine the soul to be without sounding as ambiguous as simply saying 'the soul'. However difficult it is to describe, however, it must be rather important to the gothic genre, with all its religious overtones, as it's mentioned several times in both Dracula, Doctor Faustus and I think in the Bloody Chamber occasionally, also. It's definately something I'll have to do research on. It's something that the evil presense in Doctor Faustus wanted and something that the evil presense in Dracula didn't want (Renfield, at least, was very adament that he wanted lives and not souls)

Something else in Doctor Faustus that stood out to me was the occasional rhyming...after a while of thinking it was comepletely random, I realised that the rhyming occurred when spells were being cast, when a sense of 'doom' was being created and when someone was making a dramatic exit...also, some of the highly ranked characters spoke in rhyme. As I say, it took me a while to grow accustomed to it but, I have to admit, I did find it increased the drama at times when it needed to be increased and again, stayed true to the theatre format of that time in that it was clearly a play and not trying to be absolutely naturalistic.

It was probably me being stupid (and I need to do a lot more research of the context) but the section involving the Pope lost me a little bit. I lost track around that point and was sort of questioning why the Pope was being mentioned seeing as Elizabeth I was Protestant. I couldn't quite work out whether the Pope was being criticised or praised?! I'm going to have to read over that section again.

My favourite part of the play was when Faustus was first attacked by Frederick, Benvolio and Martino as, I felt that's when the drama properly kicked in and at the end of those two scenes (4.2 and 4.3) Benvolio had an awesome exit rhyme ('Sith black disgrace hath thus eclipsed our fame/We'll rather die with grief than live with shame')

A quite specific link between Doctor Faustus and The Bloody Chamber that I found was something reagrding human nature and the fact that when you're specifically told not to do something, the temptation to do it becomes unbearable...for example, in The Bloody Chamber (I mean that actually story as opposed to the book in general), the husband gave his wife all the house keys and specifically told her not to use the key that led to the Bloody Chamber...he did so as if he was testing her and, as he expected, she did use the key and was subsequently punished for it. Similarly in Doctor Faustus, the title character tells the Horse-Courser not to take the horse he sells him into water...and of course, as Doctor Faustus suspected he would do all along, the horse is taken into water and Faustus is able to scam the man.

Doctor Faustus, as a character, I didn't think was a very 'solid' character...if that makes any sense?! I couldn't quite believe in him on account of him being so easily swayed by Mephistopheles and the good and bad angels e.t.c. His first soliloquy reflected the rest of the play in that his character flitted from one idea to the next at a rapid rate. He was so flippant and indecisive to the extent that I didn't believe he was tormented (even when he knew he was doomed) as I half felt he'd stop feeling guilty for selling his soul to the devil in the way that he had done numerous times before the end. I felt like the play was too short and as a consequence the character of Faustus lost the depth that he needed. On account of this fault, I felt that this out of the three texts, was perhaps the least 'typically' gothic...well...at least the idea of 'gothic' that I have in my head...I'm sure we'll be told it's one of the first gothic stories now and so it's the definitive gothic play but...I don't know...compared to the other two texts, it wasn't what 'gothic' means to me. I didn't feel any real emotional or psychological attachment to the characters but would go to see the play performed for the sheer spectacle. The only real emotional impact that the play had on me was the sad fact that, although throughout Faustus seemed to be seeking love and respect, it was only when his death was imminent that love and respect was shown to him...in that his scholar friends wanted to stay with him and protect him. It was that idea of him being lonely that also tied Doctor Faustus to the gothic theme.

A few last little points...in my last post I spoke about Marlowe being daring and ambitious attempting to explain what hell is like - the 'old man' in Doctor Faustus says 'No mortal can express the pains the pains of hell'...well, Marlow tries through the devils in the play.
Also...the other links I found with other texts - 'false friends' - the devils and bad angel that tempted Faustus didn't stay true to him once he had given in...just as, for example, Lucy was a false friend in Dracula when she had been bitten (in her Undead form, she tried to tempt Arthur)

Doctor Faustus

Ok, so I finally got my hands on a copy of Doctor Faustus...the book I'm reading from has two versions of the play in it though so I hope I'm reading the correct one!

When I began reading, I freaked out slightly because I thought it was going to be a real challenging read...as in, difficult to make sense of the language, let alone explore the themes e.t.c. however, as I've gone on, I've found it easier to make sense of and have even begun to enjoy the language and writing style (I love the phrasings that today seem odd, for example 'I know, but that follows not') I've only just started reading so I can talk about what I had expected (and still expect) from the play - Firstly, I was expecting it to be challenging! Secondly, I guessed from there being a character called 'Mephistopheles' that there might be magic involved and thirdly, I expected it to be quite dark and deep, with religious issues being addressed. Obviously, I've only been reading it for a short time so I can't really say whether it's lived up to my expectations quite yet however...it's looking good...it's challenging, there's certainly magic involved and I think it's about to become dark (he's just signed his soul away in blood).

I was worried I wouldn't have anything to blog about because I'd be too caught up trying to make sense of it all to spot gothic features e.t.c. however, I have spotted a few. I love the soliloquies that Faustus has as, because, you're listening into his thoughts, you really get an insight into his mind set...in the way that you could with the characters in Dracula through the diary extracts and you could in the Bloody Chamber through the first person narrative...which really draws out the psychological side to the gothic (which seems to me to be the most important feature of gothic texts)...you get inside someone's head. Also...a common link between all three texts (that I've spoken about before with reference only to The Bloody Chamber and Dracula) - the fact that, in the texts, a warning is given not to dismiss superstition, fable, fairytale e.t.c. as not everything can be explained by logic...I was interested to see that this happens in Doctor Faustus too...for example, when Faustus says 'I think hell's a fable', Mephistopheles replies 'Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind' (p201) Also...Faustus speaks of the stories of hell as 'trifles and mere old wives' tales' though Mephistopheles is, apparantly, speaking from experience. What I like about this feature, and why it's stood out to me in all three novels is that it almost glorifies itself as literature by saying...'you might think this play/novel is fictitious BUT you can never dismiss a tale/superstition because one day, when you least expect it, you might realise that it can come true...and by that point...it might be too late!!' Others themes that have stood out...pride and a burning desire (Dracula had that too...when Wagner was talking about wanting Robin to be his servant and commanding him to call him 'Master Wagner' it reminded me of the part, at the start of Dracula, when the Count is going on about his victories that span centuries...influence of history and pride creeping into both texts)

I've just read that we'll be talking in class about Marlowe's life which I'm quite pleased about as I've come to the conclusion that, in writing Doctor Faustus, he was being very ambitious and brave! Ambitious, in the sense that he's trying to explain things that can't really be explained (for example, through Mephistopheles, he speaks of hell as a certainty and attempts to explain it ('Within the bowels of these elements...') and brave in the sense that, like Faustus himself, he's almost defying and challenging God at a time when that wasn't the thing to do!! The fact that the play was first published after his death makes him slightly less brave however (though I presume it was performed while he was still alive)!! But...I still think he's brave for being that daring and risky with regard to the subject matter...though I suppose the moral of the whole thing might end up not being controversial at all as in 'so...don't sell your soul to the devil...it's bad' ... but I'll just have to wait and see.

Finally finished Dracula...

I'm not going to waffle on as much as I usually do because I'm unsure as to whether I'm making a new post correctly...being the simpleton I am, I'm finding it hard getting to grips with this blogging malarky. I still can't work out how to follow more people :(

Anyway...Dracula...I finally finished it and, to be perfectly honest, was slightly shocked at the ending...it was far more 'happily ever after' than I expected (despite the fact that quite a few people had died throughout) and I thought the final attack against Dracula would be a bit more graphic...like the 'Van Helsing cutting the heads of the 'vampire women' bit was...the fact that that part was so detailed and graphic made the actual ending a bit of an anti-climax, to my mind. Also, I always think it's a bit of a cop out when people say that novels are 'too long' as sometimes it's just another way of saying you found something boring but, I'm going to have to say it...I thought it was too long. It was certainly too long for my liking and it wasn't because I found it boring...for the most part, I was really into it but there was a time, towards the end, when I felt things could have happened a bit quicker.

There were a lot of things connected to gender that I found interesting when reading Dracula - there were some parts that I thought were quite sexist with regard to the representation of women (the fact that women weren't told of Van Helsing's findings as soon as the men were as they supposedly couldn't handle it, for example) however, at times, I thought there were very postive images of women being presented - Mina, for example, was, especially when we first meet her, a strong, independent woman. I started thinking about the role of women in the novel after the 'vampire women' in Dracula's home appeared...they had a power over both Jonathan and even, at the end, Van Helsing and although that in a way is quite a significant thing (as the people 'in charge' of the rest of the novel's action are male), it can be argued that the 'vampire women' and Lucy, after she is bitten, only have power because they were given that power by Dracula...a man. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree thinking of the novel in terms of gender but I couldn't help but think about it - the fact that the characters in the novel kept generalising with regard to gender in an 'all men...' 'all women...' type 'sweeping statement' way.

Going back to the length of the novel (sorry!) - because it was long, felt like things were repeated when they didn't need to be which gave the impression that the reader wasn't trusted to pick up on little clues themselves and were being subjected to the same piece of information repeatedly in order to get the idea...for example, when it is implied that Mina had been visited by Dracula in the night for seemingly ages after, there were references made to her being pale before it was actually revealed for definite that she had been bitten...after the first couple of mentions of her being pale I'd thought 'oh oh...I know what's coming' but rather than just getting straight onto what the reader has already been led to think...the hint was dropped, to my mind, several more times than necessary, as if the writer wasn't confident enough that the reader would pick up on subtle clues.

I'm going to end it there as, I think I've started repeating things myself!...I haven't said what I was planning to say at all so hopefully I'll get more to the point next time...in the meantime, I can't find a copy of Doctor Faustus anywhere...but I shall keep looking.

The Bloody Chamber

I'm still wading through Dracula (I'm enjoying it but it's so long!!) but I've finished The Bloody Chamber so I thought I'd blog about that.

I spoke in my last post about liking the way in which The Bloody Chamber was written (with the rich metaphors e.t.c) and although I felt like that throughout, I must admit that the story 'The Bloody Chamber' was my favourite and felt a little lost with certain stories towards the end. In the 'fairytale' sort of style you get the sense that, because things at times are very metaphorical, there's a deeper meaning to the stories and I like the way that at the end of each story I felt the need to sit for a while and think aout what I'd just read and take it all in...however, some of the last stories in the book I just ended up writing a question mark afterwards because I just couldn't work out what the heck they were on about!! The Erl-King, for example.

There were a lot of things I liked about Carter's writing style - the way she stated certain things that characters did but didn't explain them leaving the reader to question the motives ('I shivered to think of that' p12)- the imagery...there seemed to be a continued metaphorical theme of women as meat ('cuts on the slab', 'lamb chop')

I liked the fact that although some of the plots were rather obscure, there were signifiers throughout some (namely 'The Bloody Chamber') that gave an indication of what was to come - for example, the fact that the husband in The Bloody Chamber had the wedding ring of his ex-wife despite the fact that she had apparently been lost at sea and her body hadn't been recovered raised suspitition regarding his part in his wife's death. Also - although the stories were 'out there', I found that in most of the stories, because the plots are driven by deep emotions as opposed to events, that characters could be empathised with. What I mean is - although the events of the stories may be wildly unrealistic, they're rooted in real human emotion which, to me, ensures a connection with the reader.

The way in which speech was documented interested me as direct speech wasn't used very often (in the typical sense), however, references to what people had said were made all the time. The stories seemed to be more like streams of consciousness than actual written interpretations of stories and, although this style of writing allowed the reader to feel closer to the protagonists, I found it difficult at times to get to grips with the jumps in speaker e.g. from first person to third person.

The links between Dracula and The Bloody Chamber I've found intriguing too and again, I've found myself looking back over the notes made in class as there are evidence of the different 'gothic features' in both texts - asleep/wake, dead/alive, light/dark, influence of the past e.t.c. When I finally finish Dracula, I'll probably blog on the similarities between the two texts as I think they share significant gothic elements...one element that I'm finding really interesting at the moment is the fact that both texts talk about things that could be dismissed as untrue or exaggerated (fairytales in The BC and superstition in Dracula) and both directly address the issue that fairytales and superstitions should not be dismissed so readily as not everything can be worked out with reason...again throwing up the gothic idea of what's real and what's not...interesting stuff.

P.s. I don't think I'm following everyone...I can't quite work out how to follow people so if anyone could tell me that'd be great :)

Dracula + The Bloody Chamber...trying to make sense of annotations!

I have a bad habit of reading about four books at a time and switching between them so rather than finishing Dracula, I'm 3/4 of the way through and have started the Bloody Chamber. Well...Dracula - I've really got into it! The fact that I've had to read it at night with a torch for most of the time has helped create the right atmosphere also! I've gone a bit mad with annotation so I'm going to try to make sense of some of my waffle and convert it into a blog.

While reading, I've realised how important those lessons, in which we talked about elements of gothic literature, were. There are loads of times when characters are trying to explain things using logic ('my eyes deceived me') as if they're trying to resist facing up to what's really happening. The idea of the fine line between being asleep and awake has also been one I've been thinking about, with characters in Dracula talking about surreal states and 'horrible nightmares', with Dracula himself being found in a sleepy/death-like state and the husband in The Bloody Chamber being of a 'waxen stillness'...people not being able to read people's facial expressions in the novels, I have found to be quite un-nerving.

The theme that I've found the most scary in both Dracula and The Bloody Chamber has been 'being alone'. My favourite part of Dracula was when Lucy is left alone with the 'dead' after her mother dies and the maids have been drugged (again...asleep/awake...dead/alive) - I found that section really gripping as she's frightened to be alone but also frightened because she doesn't want to be joined by Dracula and there's a sense of impending doom. There are parallels with The Bloody Chamber in that the girl in that finds herself alone with the dead also (some of which look alive...the ex-wives of her husband) and she finds herself in a state of panic, torn between which is worse...being alone with those no longer living or being joined by the man who she knows is going to kill her. Reading both texts, I've got carried away in the moment and have been panicked for Lucy, the girl in Bloody Chamber and Jonathan in Dracula who all find themselves in similar situations.

The other things I've found most scary about Dracula is the fact that you see evidence of him throughout the novel...the man in the aslyum, the wolves, the dog e.t.c. and evidence of what he's doing so you know he's present but you can't put a finger on him. He's a constant presence but a hidden one, which is pretty ominous and creepy.

I've got loads more to say but I don't want to waffle on too much but...one last point...I love the way The Bloody Chamber is written. The language is really rich, lavish and imaginative and is enjoyable to read. Just the way in which Carter phrases things is so interesting - she phrases things that could be said very plainly in a much more imaginative way - ('my rank forbade overtures of friendship to the staff') and the metaphors are so imaginative and visual...'I had the brief notion that his heart, pressed as flat as a flower, crimson and thin as tissue paper, lay in this file'. The pre-modification Carter uses also gives her writing that added element of interest...for example...rather than just saying 'darkness', she will say 'absolute darkness' to add drama. Reading The Bloody Chamber, I found myself getting excited about little things like the way adverbs are used...it sounds so simple, but interesting adverbs ('He...laid his hand imperatively') make all the difference and it's these subtlties that have made reading Carter's work so pleasurable.