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.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Female Stereotypes and the Madonna/Whore Complex
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
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.
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.
Monday, 2 November 2009
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)